2021
DOI: 10.3390/diagnostics11071161
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

Dental Anomalies’ Characteristics

Abstract: The aim of this study was to characterize dental anomalies. The pretreatment records (photographs and radiographs) of 2897 patients (41.4% males and 58.6% females) were utilized to detect dental anomalies. The dental anomalies studied were related to number, size and shape, position, and eruption. A Chi-square test was carried out to detect associations between dental anomalies, jaw, and sex. A total of 1041 (36%) of the subjects manifested at least one dental anomaly. The prevalence of all dental anomalies wa… Show more

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
2
1
1
1

Citation Types

4
13
1
3

Year Published

2022
2022
2025
2025

Publication Types

Select...
9

Relationship

1
8

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 24 publications
(21 citation statements)
references
References 43 publications
4
13
1
3
Order By: Relevance
“…A higher female prevalence of tooth agenesis was found in the present study, similar to previous reports, indicating more missing teeth in females than in males [ 11 , 12 ]. A much higher prevalence of tooth agenesis (59%) was detected in the maxillary arch compared with the mandibular arch (41%), similar to reports by Alsoleihat [ 24 ], Muller [ 26 ], Mani [ 27 ], and Tunis [ 28 ]. This can partially be explained by the different growth and development of the maxilla compared with the mandible [ 28 ].…”
Section: Discussionsupporting
confidence: 86%
“…A higher female prevalence of tooth agenesis was found in the present study, similar to previous reports, indicating more missing teeth in females than in males [ 11 , 12 ]. A much higher prevalence of tooth agenesis (59%) was detected in the maxillary arch compared with the mandibular arch (41%), similar to reports by Alsoleihat [ 24 ], Muller [ 26 ], Mani [ 27 ], and Tunis [ 28 ]. This can partially be explained by the different growth and development of the maxilla compared with the mandible [ 28 ].…”
Section: Discussionsupporting
confidence: 86%
“…Impacted teeth were the second most frequently found anomaly. Likewise, they were most frequent anomaly in studies by Sella Tunis ( 25 ), Roslan ( 11 ) and Lagan ( 26 ). The frequency of patients with impaction in the study of Prskalo et al ( 27 ) – 4.71%, performed on the general Croatian population, was very similar to our results.…”
Section: Discussionmentioning
confidence: 86%
“…54 The incidence of dental anomalies occurring is low, and their uniqueness can contribute towards human identification too. However, the occurrence of dental anomalies was found to be independent from the sex of an individual, 55 which demonstrates the inability of dental anomalies to be a viable sex estimation method.…”
Section: Dovepressmentioning
confidence: 96%