Clinicostatistical analysis of congenitally missing permanent teeth in Japanese patients with cleft lip and/or palate.
Clinicostatistical analysis of congenitally missing permanent teeth in Japanese patients with cleft lip and/or palate.
复制标题
日本唇裂和/或腭裂患者先天性缺失恒牙的临床统计分析。
DOI：
10.1016/j.odw.2016.06.001
复制
发表时间：
2016
期刊：
影响因子：
--
通讯作者：
Moriyama K.
中科院分区：
文献类型：
--
作者：
Sato M;Baba Y;Haruyama N;Higashihori N;Tsuji M;Suzuki S;Moriyama K.
目的这项以医院为基础的回顾性研究旨在确定日本唇裂和/或腭裂患者中先天性缺失恒牙的患病率。材料和方法分析了 375 名连续患者的记录、牙模和 X 光片；其中，223 名患者患有唇腭裂 (CLP)； 77 例唇裂（CL）患者；和 75 名腭裂 (CP) 患者。 结果 CLP、CL 和 CP 患者先天性缺失恒牙的平均数量分别为 1.3、0.8 和 1.1 颗牙齿（CLP > CL；p< 0.05）。综合征患者平均有 1.8 颗恒牙先天性缺失，显着高于非综合征患者的 1.1 颗恒牙 (p< 0.05)。最常见的先天性缺失恒牙是上侧切牙（43.2%）、上第二前磨牙（16.0%）和下第二前磨牙（8.3%）。在 CLP、CL 和 CP 患者中，上侧切牙缺失的频率分别为 55.2%、35.1% 和 16.0% (CLP > CL > CP；p< 0.01)。上颌第二前磨牙缺失的频率分别为 17.5%、5.2% 和 22.7%（CLP > CL 和 CP > CL；p< 0.01）。结论 个体局部因素，如牙槽裂的存在与否和手术治疗，可能会导致缺失牙齿数量和裂隙类型分布的差异。另一方面，牙齿缺失的位置不一定与这些局部因素一致的发现表明遗传因素的参与。
PurposeThis retrospective hospital-based study aimed to determine the prevalence of congenitally missing permanent teeth in Japanese patients with cleft lip and/or palate.Materials and methodsThe records, dental casts, and X-ray films of 375 consecutive patients were analyzed; of these, 223 patients had a cleft lip and palate (CLP); 77 patients, cleft lip (CL); and 75 patients, cleft palate (CP).ResultsThe average number of congenitally missing permanent teeth in patients with CLP, CL, and CP was 1.3, 0.8, and 1.1 teeth, respectively (CLP > CL;p< 0.05). Syndromic patients had on average 1.8 congenitally missing permanent teeth, which was significantly higher than 1.1 teeth in nonsyndromic patients (p< 0.05). The most frequent congenitally missing permanent teeth were upper lateral incisors (43.2%), upper second premolars (16.0%), and lower second premolars (8.3%). In patients with CLP, CL, and CP, the frequency of missing upper lateral incisors was 55.2%, 35.1%, and 16.0%, respectively (CLP > CL > CP;p< 0.01). The frequency of missing upper second premolars was 17.5%, 5.2%, and 22.7%, respectively (CLP > CL and CP > CL;p< 0.01).ConclusionIndividual local factors such as the presence or absence of the alveolar cleft and surgical treatment may contribute to the difference in the number of missing teeth and distribution between cleft types. On the other hand, the finding that the locations of missing teeth were not necessarily coincident with such local factors suggests the involvement of genetic factors.