Acta odontologica Scandinavica · 2014
Maturation of teeth adjacent to dental agenesis site.
Сравнительное исследованиеСтатьяНазвание 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.
Ben-Bassat Yocheved, Babadzhanov Daniel, Brin Ilana, Hazan-Molina Hagai, Aizenbud Dror
Аннотация
OBJECTIVE: The purpose of this study was to evaluate the developmental stage of teeth adjacent to the agenesis site in comparison to their antimeres.
MATERIALS AND METHODS: Panoramic views of 39 patients with unilateral dental agenesis and 42 normal controls were evaluated. The dental developmental stage (normal or delayed) of the teeth adjacent to the agenesis site was determined for each patient using the Haavikko's method, while the overall dental age was determined by Becker's method.
RESULTS: No statistically significant difference was found in the developmental stage of teeth adjacent to the agenesis, compared to their antimere and to the same teeth in the normal control group. However, the prevalence of cases with no difference in development was almost double for the tooth distal to the agenesis site compared to the tooth mesial to the agenesis site in the hypodontia group (84.6% distal and 43.6% mesial; p < 0.001) and in the control group (83.3% distal and 52.4% mesial; p < 0.002). In most of the cases the tooth distal to the agenesis site was the 1st permanent molar.
CONCLUSIONS: (1) No difference was found between the developmental stage of teeth adjacent to the agenesis site and their antimeres. (2) Teeth mesial to the agenesis site showed some delay in development compared to teeth distal to the agenesis site, in this study. (3) The 1st molars, which were in most of the cases the distal adjacent tooth to the site of agenesis, showed developmental stability. (4) Additional longitudinal studies are needed to examine the dental developmental pattern in patients with agenesis.
MATERIALS AND METHODS: Panoramic views of 39 patients with unilateral dental agenesis and 42 normal controls were evaluated. The dental developmental stage (normal or delayed) of the teeth adjacent to the agenesis site was determined for each patient using the Haavikko's method, while the overall dental age was determined by Becker's method.
RESULTS: No statistically significant difference was found in the developmental stage of teeth adjacent to the agenesis, compared to their antimere and to the same teeth in the normal control group. However, the prevalence of cases with no difference in development was almost double for the tooth distal to the agenesis site compared to the tooth mesial to the agenesis site in the hypodontia group (84.6% distal and 43.6% mesial; p < 0.001) and in the control group (83.3% distal and 52.4% mesial; p < 0.002). In most of the cases the tooth distal to the agenesis site was the 1st permanent molar.
CONCLUSIONS: (1) No difference was found between the developmental stage of teeth adjacent to the agenesis site and their antimeres. (2) Teeth mesial to the agenesis site showed some delay in development compared to teeth distal to the agenesis site, in this study. (3) The 1st molars, which were in most of the cases the distal adjacent tooth to the site of agenesis, showed developmental stability. (4) Additional longitudinal studies are needed to examine the dental developmental pattern in patients with agenesis.