Korean journal of orthodontics · 2015
Dentoskeletal features in individuals with ectopic eruption of the permanent maxillary first molar.
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.
Mucedero Manuela, Rozzi Matteo, Cardoni Giulia, Ricchiuti Maria Rosaria, Cozza Paola
Аннотация
OBJECTIVE: The aim of the study was to analyze the prevalence and distribution of ectopic eruption of the permanent maxillary first molar (EEM) in individuals scheduled for orthodontic treatment and to investigate the association of EEM with dental characteristics, maxillary skeletal features, crowding, and other dental anomalies.
METHODS: A total of 1,317 individuals were included and randomly divided into two groups. The first 265 subjects were included as controls, while the remaining 1,052 subjects included the sample from which the final experimental EEM group was derived. The mesiodistal (M-D) crown width of the deciduous maxillary second molar and permanent maxillary first molar, maxillary arch length (A-PML), maxillomandibular transverse skeletal relationships (anterior and posterior transverse interarch discrepancies, ATID and PTID), maxillary and mandibular tooth crowding, and the presence of dental anomalies were recorded for each subject, and the statistical significance of differences in these parameters between the EEM and control groups was determined using independent sample t-tests. Chi-square tests were used to compare the prevalence of other dental anomalies between the two groups.
RESULTS: The prevalence of maxillary EEM was 2.5%. The M-D crown widths, ATID and PTID, and tooth crowding were significantly greater, while A-PML was significantly smaller, in the EEM group than in the control group. Only two subjects showed an association between EEM and maxillary lateral incisor anomalies, which included agenesis in one and microdontia in the other.
CONCLUSIONS: EEM may be a risk factor for maxillary arch constriction and severe tooth crowding.
METHODS: A total of 1,317 individuals were included and randomly divided into two groups. The first 265 subjects were included as controls, while the remaining 1,052 subjects included the sample from which the final experimental EEM group was derived. The mesiodistal (M-D) crown width of the deciduous maxillary second molar and permanent maxillary first molar, maxillary arch length (A-PML), maxillomandibular transverse skeletal relationships (anterior and posterior transverse interarch discrepancies, ATID and PTID), maxillary and mandibular tooth crowding, and the presence of dental anomalies were recorded for each subject, and the statistical significance of differences in these parameters between the EEM and control groups was determined using independent sample t-tests. Chi-square tests were used to compare the prevalence of other dental anomalies between the two groups.
RESULTS: The prevalence of maxillary EEM was 2.5%. The M-D crown widths, ATID and PTID, and tooth crowding were significantly greater, while A-PML was significantly smaller, in the EEM group than in the control group. Only two subjects showed an association between EEM and maxillary lateral incisor anomalies, which included agenesis in one and microdontia in the other.
CONCLUSIONS: EEM may be a risk factor for maxillary arch constriction and severe tooth crowding.