K P Arvedsen1, I Kjær2. 1. Department of Odontology School of Dentistry, Faculty of Health and Medical Sciences, University of Copenhagen, Nørre Alle 20, 2200, Copenhagen N, Denmark. 2. Department of Odontology School of Dentistry, Faculty of Health and Medical Sciences, University of Copenhagen, Nørre Alle 20, 2200, Copenhagen N, Denmark. ik@sund.ku.dk.
Abstract
AIM: Agenesis of maxillary permanent canines is a rare form of agenesis (prevalence 0.07-0.13%). The aetiology is still unknown. The purpose was to focus on dentitions and craniofacial profiles in individuals with maxillary canine agenesis. METHOD: From 91 individuals (10-18 years of age) 91 Orthopantomograms and 77 profile radiographs were divided accordingly: Group I: agenesis of 1 or 2 maxillary canines. Group II: several ageneses including the maxillary canines. Dentition analysis included crown/root shape, invaginations, eruption disturbances and resorption patterns. Cephalometric angular measurements and mutual comparisons between the groups were performed. Agenesis pattern in Group II was compared to agenesis pattern in a population of children and young adults not characterized by maxillary canine agenesis. Cephalometric values from both groups were compared to normal values from individuals without agenesis. Findings were statistically evaluated. RESULTS: Dentition: Group I: only the missing maxillary canines were deemed to be in an abnormal dental deviation. Group II: abnormal dental development regarding morphology, resorption of primary teeth and also agenesis of the first maxillary premolar. Comparison of the groups showed a difference in the pattern of malformation. Profile: Group I: anterior inclination of the maxilla and increased cranial base angle were significant findings. Group II: diminished incisor slope in the maxilla and enlarged cranial base angle were significant findings. A comparison showed a difference in maxillary inclinations of the teeth. CONCLUSION: Group I dentitions are normally developed with only minor dental malformations. Group II dentitions had several dental malformations and often agenesis of the first maxillary premolar. Significant findings: first maxillary premolar agenesis in Group II and enlarged cranial base angle in both groups.
AIM: Agenesis of maxillary permanent canines is a rare form of agenesis (prevalence 0.07-0.13%). The aetiology is still unknown. The purpose was to focus on dentitions and craniofacial profiles in individuals with maxillary canine agenesis. METHOD: From 91 individuals (10-18 years of age) 91 Orthopantomograms and 77 profile radiographs were divided accordingly: Group I: agenesis of 1 or 2 maxillary canines. Group II: several ageneses including the maxillary canines. Dentition analysis included crown/root shape, invaginations, eruption disturbances and resorption patterns. Cephalometric angular measurements and mutual comparisons between the groups were performed. Agenesis pattern in Group II was compared to agenesis pattern in a population of children and young adults not characterized by maxillary canine agenesis. Cephalometric values from both groups were compared to normal values from individuals without agenesis. Findings were statistically evaluated. RESULTS: Dentition: Group I: only the missing maxillary canines were deemed to be in an abnormal dental deviation. Group II: abnormal dental development regarding morphology, resorption of primary teeth and also agenesis of the first maxillary premolar. Comparison of the groups showed a difference in the pattern of malformation. Profile: Group I: anterior inclination of the maxilla and increased cranial base angle were significant findings. Group II: diminished incisor slope in the maxilla and enlarged cranial base angle were significant findings. A comparison showed a difference in maxillary inclinations of the teeth. CONCLUSION: Group I dentitions are normally developed with only minor dental malformations. Group II dentitions had several dental malformations and often agenesis of the first maxillary premolar. Significant findings: first maxillary premolar agenesis in Group II and enlarged cranial base angle in both groups.
Authors: Bart J Polder; Martin A Van't Hof; Frans P G M Van der Linden; Anne M Kuijpers-Jagtman Journal: Community Dent Oral Epidemiol Date: 2004-06 Impact factor: 3.383