| Literature DB >> 33403344 |
Mohamed Nader Kalaji1, Adnan Asaad Habib2, Mohamed Alwessabi3.
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: To determine the prevalence and distribution of pulp stones in the posterior teeth of a sample of adult Yemeni dental patients using digital panoramic radiographs.Entities:
Keywords: Panoramic radiographs; prevalence; pulp stones; yemeni population
Year: 2017 PMID: 33403344 PMCID: PMC7757961 DOI: 10.14744/eej.2017.17024
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Eur Endod J ISSN: 2548-0839
Radiographic studies on the prevalence of pulp stones in several populations
| Author | Year | Population | Sample number in subjects | Sample number in teeth | Prevalence in subjects | Prevalence in teeth | Radiographic assessment method |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Tamse et al. ( | 1982 | Israeli | 300 | 1380 | Not presented | 20.7% | Bitewing and |
| (aged 20-40 years) | periapical radiographs | ||||||
| Baghdady et al. ( | 1988 | Iraqi | 515 (teenagers) | 6228 | Not presented | 19.2% | Bitewing radiographs |
| AI-Nazhan | 1991 | Saudi | 600 | 8456 | Not presented | 10.2% | Bitewing |
| & Al-Shammrani ( | radiographs | ||||||
| Al-Hadi Hamasha | 1998 | Jordanian | 814 | 4573 | 51.4% | 22% | Bitewing and |
| et al. ( | periapical radiographs | ||||||
| Ranjitkar et al. ( | 2002 | Australian | 217 | 3296 | 46.1% | 10.1% | Bitewing radiographs |
| Syrynska et al. ( | 2010 | Polish | 165 | Not presented | 51.5% | Not presented | Panoramic radiographs |
| Al-Ghurabi et al. ( | 2012 | Iraqi | 390 | 3758 | 34.8% | 7.3% | Digital panoramic |
| radiographs | |||||||
| Bains et al. ( | 2014 | Indian | 500 | 5333 (molars) | 41.8% | 9.09% | Bitewing radiographs |
| Kannan et al. ( | 2015 | Malaysian | 361 | 1779 | 44.9% | 15.7% | Periapical radiographs |
| Gulsahi et al. ( | 2009 | Turkish | 519 | 13474 | 12% | 5% | Periapical radiographs |
| Şener et al. (12) | 2009 | Turkish | 536 | 15362 | 38% | 4.8% | Bitewing and |
| periapical radiographs | |||||||
| Colak et al. ( | 2012 | Turkish | 814 | 12928 | 63.6% | 27.8% | Bitewing radiographs |
| Sisman et al. ( | 2012 | Turkish | 469 | 6926 | 57.6% | 15% | Bitewing radiographs |
| Turkal et al. ( | 2013 | Turkish | 6912 | 96240 | 12.7% | 2.1% | Digital panoramic |
| Radiographs |
Figure 1Pulp stones observed inside the pulp chamber in the upper and first molar in the same patient
Prevalence of pulp stones and the association with gender
| Gender | Number of examined subjects | Number of subjects with pulp stones | Percentage of subject with pulp stones |
|---|---|---|---|
| Male | 344 | 63 | 18.3 |
| Female | 569 | 107 | 18.8 |
| Total | 913 | 170 | 18.6 |
Association between pulp stones and age
| Subject age, years | Number of examined subjects | Number of subjects with pulp stones | Percentage of subjects with pulp stone |
|---|---|---|---|
| 15-20 | 8 | 87 | 9.19 |
| 21-30 | 76 | 334 | 22.75 |
| 31-40 | 47 | 256 | 18.35 |
| 41-50 | 30 | 178 | 16.85 |
| 51-60 | 9 | 58 | 15.51 |
| Total | 170 | 913 | 18.61 |
Prevalence of pulp stones by dental arch
| Number | Percentage of all the studied subjects | Percentage of subjects affected with pulp stone | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Subjects with pulp | 108 | 11.8 | 63.5 |
| stones in the maxillary | |||
| posteriors only | |||
| Subjects with pulp | 16 | 1.8 | 9.4 |
| stones in the mandibular | |||
| posterior only | |||
| Subjects having pulp | 46 | 5 | 27.1 |
| stones in both jaws | |||
| Total | 170 | 18.6 | 100 |
Distribution of number of pulp stones in the affected subjects
| Number of teeth with pulp stone | Number of subjects | Percentage of subjects | Percentage of the affected subjects | |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 0 | 745 | 81.59 | ||
| 1 | 73 | 7.99 | 44 | |
| 2 | 44 | 4.81 | =10.4 | 56 |
| 3 | 28 | 3.06 | ||
| 4 | 12 | 1.31 | ||
| 5 | 8 | 0.87 | ||
| 6 | 3 | 0.32 | ||
| 913 | 100 | 100 |
Occurrence of pulp stones in association with tooth type, dental arch and side
| Maxilla | Mandible | |||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| ISO tooth number | Number of examined teeth | Number of teeth with pulp stones | Percentage of teeth with pulp stones | Tooth type | Number of examined teeth | Number of teeth with pulp stones | Percentage of teeth with pulp stones | |
| Right side | 14 | 550 | 0 | 0 | 44 | 539 | 0 | 0 |
| 15 | 549 | 0 | 0 | 45 | 560 | 1 | 0.17 | |
| 16 | 559 | 97 | 17.35 | 46 | 551 | 27 | 4.9 | |
| 17 | 552 | 55 | 9.96 | 47 | 558 | 26 | 4.65 | |
| Left side | 24 | 549 | 0 | 0 | 34 | 541 | 2 | 0.36 |
| 25 | 555 | 0 | 0 | 35 | 543 | 0 | 0 | |
| 26 | 544 | 48 | 8.82 | 36 | 556 | 23 | 4.13 | |
| 27 | 539 | 50 | 9.27 | 37 | 557 | 22 | 3.94 | |
| 4397 | 250 | 5.68 | 4405 | 101 | 2.29 |
Chi-square test was statistically significant for higher occurrence of pulp stones in the maxilla (P<0.001)
Chi-square test was statistically significant for higher occurrence of pulp stones in the right side in each jaw (P<0.001)
Chi-square test was statistically significant for the occurrence of pulp stones in first and second molars (P<0.001)
Figure 2(a-c) Distribution of the posterior teeth having pulp stones; percentage of each type of teeth among the affected teeth and (a) distribution of the affected teeth between the two jaws; (b) distribution of the affected teeth between the two sides (c)