Abstract
Introduction: Dental anomalies have been widely examined, but no such studies have been conducted in Norway. The purpose of this study was to examine the prevalence of dental anomalies and investigate their possible association with gender and dental occlusion. Methods: Panoramic radiographs and study models of 500, 12-year-old school children (273 girls, 227 boys) were analyzed for the presence of dental anomalies including agenesis, taurodontism, pulp stones, microdontia, macrodontia, impaction, short roots, supernumerary teeth, ectopic eruption and transposition. The subjects were divided into three groups according to the Angle classification (Class Ι, n = 252. Class ΙΙ, n = 227. Class ΙΙΙ, n = 21). Percentages and chi-square test were used for evaluation of the data. Results: In this population 28.2% of the subjects showed at least one dental anomaly. Statistically significant associations were observed between agenesis and Angle Class II dental occlusion (P = 0.03), and between agenesis and gender (P = 0.004). Conclusions: Agenesis was a predominant dental anomaly in girls and was found twice as often in subjects with Class ΙΙ, than with Class Ι dental occlusion.
Highlights
Dental anomalies have been widely examined, but no such studies have been conducted in Norway
Significant associations were observed between agenesis and Angle Class II dental occlusion (P = 0.03), and between agenesis and gender (P = 0.004)
The distribution was rather equal between girls and boys, but predominant in the Angle Class I and Class II dental occlusions (Figure 1)
Summary
Dental anomalies have been widely examined, but no such studies have been conducted in Norway. The purpose of this study was to examine the prevalence of dental anomalies and investigate their possible association with gender and dental occlusion. Significant associations were observed between agenesis and Angle Class II dental occlusion (P = 0.03), and between agenesis and gender (P = 0.004). Studies on the prevalence of dental anomalies show divergent results [5,8,9,10]. Several investigations report a prevalence of tooth anomalies to be between 34% and 40% [5,8,9]. The reasons for such discrepancies can be multifold. Ethnical differences can be one explanation, but the type of dental anomalies investigated and the use of different diagnostic criteria can contribute to the divergent results
Sign-in/Register to view highlights & summary Sign-in/Register to access full text options 
Talk to us
Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have
Schedule a callDisclaimer: All third-party content on this website/platform is and will remain the property of their respective owners and is provided on "as is" basis without any warranties, express or implied. Use of third-party content does not indicate any affiliation, sponsorship with or endorsement by them. Any references to third-party content is to identify the corresponding services and shall be considered fair use under The CopyrightLaw.
