Dento maxillo facial radiology · 2012
Diagnostic tools used to predict the prevalence of supernumerary teeth: a meta-analysis.
СтатьяМетаанализНазвание и аннотация: Перевод пока не подготовлен
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.
Anthonappa R P, King N M, Rabie A B M
Аннотация
OBJECTIVES: This study sought to (i) determine the variations in prevalence figures based on the diagnostic tools employed, and (ii) provide an insight into the prevalence of supernumerary teeth.
METHODS: A comprehensive literature search of the prevalence reports on supernumerary teeth was conducted using two databases. Two independent observers rated these articles according to exclusion and inclusion criteria. 28 papers were included in the analysis to determine the variations in the prevalence figures in relation to the method of diagnosis, and 14 studies were included to estimate the prevalence figures for supernumerary teeth. Statistical analysis was computed using analysis of variance (ANOVA), Student Neumann-Keuls (SNK) test and multiple regression analysis.
RESULTS: Statistically significant differences were evident in the prevalence figures based only on a clinical examination compared with groups that also employed radiographs (p < 0.05, ANOVA, SNK). The prevalence figures for supernumerary teeth ranged from 0% to 3%. The mean prevalence value for the European white population [1.6% (±0.6)] was lower than that of the southern Chinese population [2.7% (±0.14)]. The overall prevalence of supernumerary teeth for males was significantly higher than for females [relative risk = 1.37 (1.13-1.50)].
CONCLUSIONS: Clinical examination plus some types of radiograph(s) are essential for determining the prevalence of supernumerary teeth; nevertheless, it is still underestimated. Several disparities in the prevalence reports make the available data on supernumerary teeth questionable.
METHODS: A comprehensive literature search of the prevalence reports on supernumerary teeth was conducted using two databases. Two independent observers rated these articles according to exclusion and inclusion criteria. 28 papers were included in the analysis to determine the variations in the prevalence figures in relation to the method of diagnosis, and 14 studies were included to estimate the prevalence figures for supernumerary teeth. Statistical analysis was computed using analysis of variance (ANOVA), Student Neumann-Keuls (SNK) test and multiple regression analysis.
RESULTS: Statistically significant differences were evident in the prevalence figures based only on a clinical examination compared with groups that also employed radiographs (p < 0.05, ANOVA, SNK). The prevalence figures for supernumerary teeth ranged from 0% to 3%. The mean prevalence value for the European white population [1.6% (±0.6)] was lower than that of the southern Chinese population [2.7% (±0.14)]. The overall prevalence of supernumerary teeth for males was significantly higher than for females [relative risk = 1.37 (1.13-1.50)].
CONCLUSIONS: Clinical examination plus some types of radiograph(s) are essential for determining the prevalence of supernumerary teeth; nevertheless, it is still underestimated. Several disparities in the prevalence reports make the available data on supernumerary teeth questionable.