BMC oral health · 2023
Is there an association between molar incisor hypomineralization and developmental dental anomalies? A case-control study.
СтатьяНазвание и аннотация: Перевод в очереди
Обработка статьи · этапы, ошибки и управление
Загрузка состояния…
Ошибки и ограничения
История · было → стало
Состояние обновляется каждые 5 секунд, пока блок открыт. Процент показывается только там, где известен объём работы. Пауза останавливает продолжение этапа; текущий запрос к источнику может завершиться.
Şen Yavuz Betül, Sezer Berkant, Kaya Remziye, Tuğcu Nihan, Kargül Betül
Аннотация
BACKGROUND: The aim of this study was to determine whether there is any association between molar incisor hypomineralization and developmental dental anomalies.
METHODS: Two pediatric dentists evaluated panoramic radiographs of 429 children aged 8-14 years with molar incisor hypomineralization (study group) and 437 children without molar incisor hypomineralization (control group) in terms of developmental dental anomalies. Twelve different developmental dental anomalies were categorized into four types: size (microdontia, macrodontia); position (ectopic eruption of maxillary permanent first molars, infraocclusion of primary molars); shape (fusion, gemination, dilaceration, taurodontism, peg-shaped maxillary lateral incisors); and number (hypodontia, oligodontia, hyperdontia) anomalies.
RESULTS: No significant difference was observed in the frequencies of developmental dental anomalies between the study and control groups in total, females, and males (p > 0.05). A statistically significant difference was found between the distribution of developmental size, position, shape, and number anomalies between the study and control groups (p = 0.024). The most common anomaly in both groups was hypodontia (6.3% and 5.9%, respectively). There was a significant difference between the study and control groups in terms of subtypes of shape anomaly in all children and females (p = 0.045 and p = 0.05, respectively).
CONCLUSIONS: While a significant difference was observed between the distributions of types of developmental dental anomalies between individuals with and without molar incisor hypomineralization, there was no difference in terms of the frequency of developmental dental anomalies.
METHODS: Two pediatric dentists evaluated panoramic radiographs of 429 children aged 8-14 years with molar incisor hypomineralization (study group) and 437 children without molar incisor hypomineralization (control group) in terms of developmental dental anomalies. Twelve different developmental dental anomalies were categorized into four types: size (microdontia, macrodontia); position (ectopic eruption of maxillary permanent first molars, infraocclusion of primary molars); shape (fusion, gemination, dilaceration, taurodontism, peg-shaped maxillary lateral incisors); and number (hypodontia, oligodontia, hyperdontia) anomalies.
RESULTS: No significant difference was observed in the frequencies of developmental dental anomalies between the study and control groups in total, females, and males (p > 0.05). A statistically significant difference was found between the distribution of developmental size, position, shape, and number anomalies between the study and control groups (p = 0.024). The most common anomaly in both groups was hypodontia (6.3% and 5.9%, respectively). There was a significant difference between the study and control groups in terms of subtypes of shape anomaly in all children and females (p = 0.045 and p = 0.05, respectively).
CONCLUSIONS: While a significant difference was observed between the distributions of types of developmental dental anomalies between individuals with and without molar incisor hypomineralization, there was no difference in terms of the frequency of developmental dental anomalies.