Home | About Us | Editorial Board | Current Issue | Archives | Search | Instructions | Subscription | Feedback | e-Alerts | Login 
Journal of Indian Society of Pedodontics and Preventive Dentistry Official publication of Indian Society of Pedodontics and Preventive Dentistry
 Users Online: 1420  
 
  Print this page Email this page   Small font sizeDefault font sizeIncrease font size


 
  Table of Contents    
ORIGINAL ARTICLE
Year : 2017  |  Volume : 35  |  Issue : 1  |  Page : 56-62
 

Prevalence of dental anomalies in deciduous dentition and its association with succedaneous dentition: A cross-sectional study of 4180 South Indian children


Department of Paedodontics and Preventive Dentistry, Narayana Dental College and Hospital, Nellore, Andhra Pradesh, India

Date of Web Publication31-Jan-2017

Correspondence Address:
G Shilpa
Department of Pedodontics and Preventive Dentistry, Narayana Dental College and Hospital, Nellore, Andhra Pradesh
India
Login to access the Email id

Source of Support: None, Conflict of Interest: None


DOI: 10.4103/0970-4388.199228

Rights and Permissions

 

   Abstract 

Objective: The objective of this study was to estimate the prevalence of dental anomalies in primary dentition of Indian population. Materials and Methods: This cross-sectional study was conducted on 4180 children in the age of 2–6 years. Anomalies were classified based on Kreiborg criteria. The term “double tooth” was used to avoid misinterpretation between gemination. and fusion. Patients having radiographs were also examined for associated dental anomalies in permanent dentition. The occurrence and gender prevalence were evaluated using descriptive statistics. Results: About 95. (2.27%) children exhibited at least one dental anomaly. Thirty.seven children showed 51 missing teeth. (0.88%), mostly in lower right incisors with a statistically significant difference between arches. (P = 0.0056) Nine children. (0.21%) had supernumerary teeth commonly in the right maxilla. Two cases of oligodontia. (0.04%) and talon cusps. (0.04%) and one case of triple tooth. (0.02%) were observed. Forty children. (0.95%) had 43 double teeth mostly in the right mandible with a statistically significant difference between the arches. (P = 0.0105). No significant difference was observed based on gender and arch, but they were statistically significant between the right and left sides. (P = 0.018). Among the children with radiographs available, 45% showed anomalies in the succedaneous dentition. Conclusions: The prevalence rates of children with double tooth, hypodontia, and hyperdontia in our study are 0.95%, 0.88%, and 0.21%, respectively. The overall prevalence rate of anomalies among boys was higher than girls.


Keywords: Dental anomalies, double tooth, hypodontia, supernumerary teeth


How to cite this article:
Shilpa G, Gokhale N, Mallineni SK, Nuvvula S. Prevalence of dental anomalies in deciduous dentition and its association with succedaneous dentition: A cross-sectional study of 4180 South Indian children. J Indian Soc Pedod Prev Dent 2017;35:56-62

How to cite this URL:
Shilpa G, Gokhale N, Mallineni SK, Nuvvula S. Prevalence of dental anomalies in deciduous dentition and its association with succedaneous dentition: A cross-sectional study of 4180 South Indian children. J Indian Soc Pedod Prev Dent [serial online] 2017 [cited 2017 Aug 23];35:56-62. Available from: http://www.jisppd.com/text.asp?2017/35/1/56/199228



   Introduction Top


Dental anomalies in children can lead to an increased risk of dental problems from esthetic to orthodontic problems. Estimation of prevalence based on children attending as dental outpatients would be a misjudgment in developing countries. Therefore, it is not surprising to find no published data on the prevalence of dental anomalies in South Indian children. The reported prevalence of overall dental anomalies in primary dentition in various studies ranges from 0.4% to 8.1%.[1],[2],[3],[4],[5],[6],[7],[8],[9],[10],[11] The prevalence studies are useful to understand the magnitude of problems and in the formulation of oral health care programs. They would also lead to increased awareness among the dental faculty, which would help in early diagnosis and comprehensive management of these children. There have been only a few reported studies on the prevalence of dental anomalies in primary dentition.

In developing countries like India with a grouping of social, cultural, and religions, a vast economic gap exists between the poor and malnourished and affluent children. They would also help in the comparison of rates between races, countries, etc., which would help in predicting the possible etiological factors. These studies would also help geneticists and anthropologists in their comparison studies. Nonetheless, the purpose of the present study was to estimate the prevalence of dental anomalies in South Indian children.


   Materials And Methods Top


This cross-sectional study was conducted in children in the age group of 2–6 years attending various nurseries and primary schools (run by government and private organizations) in the rural and urban sectors of South India. The Institutional Research and Ethical Committee approved the proposal of this study. Among 170 primary schools in the rural and urban sectors, 64 schools were included in the present study. Children were examined during the school hours after taking permission from school authorities. Clinical examination was performed to record dental anomalies. All the children were examined using a mouth mirror and a probe. Children with systemic anomalies were excluded from the study. The parents of children with dental anomalies were informed, and with their consent, further evaluation was done at the department of pedodontics and preventive dentistry using radiographs. Parents were counseled regarding the anomaly and the need for regular follow-up. The nomenclature proposed by Kreiborg criteria for dental anomalies was used in our study with the following modifications.[12]

  1. The following definitions from Kreiborg criteria were followed:

    1. Supernumerary: Presence of an extra tooth
    2. Hypodontia: Absence of one or more teeth
    3. Microdontia: A single tooth smaller than normal.


  2. We have used the term “double tooth” as suggested by Carvalho et al.[10] and “triple tooth” as used by Knapp and McMahon [13] to describe anomalies with abnormally large teeth irrespective of the presence or absence of normal complement. These terminologies have been chosen for the following reasons:

    1. To avoid the difficulty and lack of accuracy that exists in differentiating between fusion and gemination based on clinical features alone [4],[5]
    2. Various definitions for gemination in literature [8],[11]
    3. Possibility of geminated tooth with hypodontia, supernumerary tooth (ST) fused to a normal, and other differentials, as suggested by Knezevic et al.[14]
    4. Similar treatment modalities for geminated/fused teeth.


    The double teeth were further classified into the following types based on crown and root morphology as used by Aguilo et al. This classification was chosen as it has a clinical relevance in management.[15]

    • Type I: Bifid crown-single root
    • Type II: Large crown-large root
    • Type III: Two fused crowns-double conical roots
    • Type IV: Two fused crowns-two fused roots.


  3. Oligodontia: Absence of more than six teeth.[16]


Clinical and radiological findings were correlated. The correlation between primary and permanent dentition was also documented. Supernumerary teeth were classified based on location, shape, and orientation. The classification of supernumerary teeth into mesiodens, paramolar, and distomolar, which is widely used in permanent dentition, cannot be strictly followed in primary dentition because of the terminology used. We have used the number of children with anomalies in the numerator for the calculation of prevalence rates in our study. Statistical analysis was done to find the significance of differences between genders' side and location using Chi-square tests and tests of proportion (Z-test).


   Results Top


A total of 4180 children (boys: 2473 and girls: 1707) were involved in the present study. Age of the children ranged from 3½ to 6 years. At least one dental anomaly was present in 95 (2.27%) patients. A total of 143 anomalies (missing tooth: 82, double tooth: 48, supernumerary: 10, talon cusp: 2, and triple teeth: 1) were found in 95 children. The overall prevalence rate of anomalies among boys was 2.5% (n = 62) and girls was 1.9% (n = 33). [Table 1] shows the demographic variables and distribution of cases according to gender, site, and side. Distribution of anomalies by number of children and type of anomalies is shown in [Figure 1].
Table 1: Demographic variables and statistical significances for overall anomalies

Click here to view
Figure 1: Distribution of anomalies by type of anomalies (n = 143)

Click here to view


Forty children presented with 43 double teeth with a prevalence rate of 0.95% (40/4180; boys: 25 and girls: 15). The most common location was the right mandible. There was statistically significant difference between mandibular and maxillary arches (28 vs. 15) (Z = 2.58 at 95% confidence interval [CI], P = 0.0105). There was no significant difference between the right and left sides (26 vs. 17) (Z = 1.72, P = 0.085). There were three cases with bilateral symmetrical double tooth. In 15 cases, the radiological images could not be obtained because of reasons such as parents giving no consent and transfer of some students. On radiological evaluation of 25 cases, there were 12 children with missing teeth (common site - right mandibular) and 1 child with ST in succedaneous dentition. The details of cases with double teeth are summarized in [Table 2]. Two cases presented with talons cusp with a prevalence rate of 0.04% (male: 1, female: 1), and in both the cases, the anomaly was seen on the left side in the maxillary arch. Thirty-seven children presented 51 missing teeth with a prevalence rate (hypodontia by number of children) of 0.88% (37/4180). The prevalence among boys (1.02%) is double that of girls (0.5%) that is not statistically significant (P = 0.08). Out of the 37 children, 10 (27%) showed more than one tooth missing; with 8 of them showing two missing teeth (7 with bilateral and 1 with unilateral missing teeth) and each of the other 2 children showing four missing teeth (1 had all the four anterior missing teeth in mandibular arch and 1 showed bilateral missing teeth in maxillary arch and two teeth missing on the same side in mandibular arch). Apart from these, there were two cases of oligodontia (with 14 missing teeth in each case). There was no significant difference between the right and left sides (25 vs. 26) (Z = 0). The missing teeth were twice more common in mandibular arch when compared to maxillary arch (33 vs. 18), the difference being statistically different (Z = 2.77 at 95% CI, P = 0.0056). The most common missing tooth was the right mandibular lateral incisor followed by the left mandibular lateral incisor (31%). There were six children with available radiographs, among which two had missing teeth in the succedaneous dentition also. The details are summarized in [Table 3].
Table 2: Distribution of double teeth by gender, region, location, and type (43 in 40 children)

Click here to view
Table 3: Distribution of hypodontia by gender, region, location, and type (51 missing teeth in 37 children

Click here to view


The overall prevalence rate of ST was 0.21% (9/4180) (male: 6, female: 3), with the most common site being the right maxilla. All the nine patients showed ST in the maxillary arch with eight of them on the right maxilla. Seven of the cases were supplemental type and two were conical ST. Eight children showed normal orientation and one child showed transverse orientation. Out of these nine cases, two patients showed supernumerary and one patient showed missing teeth in the succedaneous dentition.

This study showed 12 cases of bilateral anomalies (0.28%), with 3 children presenting bilateral double teeth and 9 with bilateral missing teeth. Four children (0.09%) presented with more than one type of anomaly (three with double tooth and missing tooth and one with double tooth and ST). One case showed diagonal presence of (maxillary and mandibular) double teeth, one case (case 3) showed solitary median maxillary central incisor syndrome, and two cases showed missing teeth in the succedaneous dentition.

Radiological images were available for 44 cases (25 cases of double teeth, 9 cases of ST, 6 cases of hypodontia, and 4 cases of multiple anomalies) of our study. Out of these, 20 (45%) cases consisting of 13 with double tooth, 3 with ST, 2 with hypodontia, and 2 with multiple anomalies showed anomalies in the succedaneous dentition also. Seventeen cases showed hypodontia (85%) and three cases (two with supernumerary teeth and one with double tooth) had ST.


   Discussion Top


Dental anomalies and “Evolution”

Dental anomalies have been reported since ancient times. There are reports of dental anomalies in several anthropological studies. A supernumerary lateral incisor has been reported from a 1.7 million year old hominid fossil of Australopithecus robustus found in a cave of South Africa.[17] Missing lateral incisors have been reported from Iron age Southeast Asians.[18] Bennazi et al. have recently reported a case of triple teeth in a five-year- old child discovered in a late medieval cemetery in Italy.[19] Dental anomalies have been of major concern in various species including domestic animals such as horses and dogs. Presence of anomalies will affect the chewing and thereby nutrition of these animals. The Merck veterinary manual [20] clearly mentions about anodontia and supernumerary teeth in dogs (canines) and horses (incisors and molars). Well aligned dentition plays a predominant role in the smile, which is the unique feature of human beings standing at the top of evolution. Human beings with a 'dentition” that has contributed to their success in evolution are susceptible to various kinds of dental anomalies due to developmental, genetic, environmental and other factors.

Embryology of Dental Anomalies

Malformation of teeth can be classified according to the size, shape, number, and structure. During the early bell stage (14th week), the dental lamina starts breaking down and degenerates. The enamel organ looses connection with the oral epithelium. According to the dental lamina hyperactivity theory, a supplemental form of supernumerary tooth (ST) will develop from the lingual extension of an accessory tooth bud whereas a rudimentary form would develop from the proliferation of the epithelial remnants of the dental lamina.[21] Gemination develops due to partial cleavage or complete division of tooth germ. Fusion occurs due to the union of two adjacent tooth germs. Hypodontia develops due to arrest of tooth development in the bud stage.

There were a lot of debits of fusion and gemination; consequently, various studies have started using the term “double tooth” to indicate both fusion and gemination. Over the last one decade, the terminology of “double tooth” is widely in usage to avoid the confusion of gemination versus Fusion, especially gemination and ST fused to a normal tooth. Therefore, we have used the term double tooth (irrespective of the number of teeth) to define various anomalies such as fusion, gemination, gemination with hypodontia, and supernumerary fused to a normal tooth, which are very difficult to distinguish clinically. The cause of double tooth (DT) may be inheritance and local factors such as crowding or trauma. DT is more common in primary dentition when compared to permanent dentition. Our study reports a prevalence of 0.95%. There is a significant variation in the prevalence rates of various geographical regions. The studies reported by Yonezu et al. from Japan and King from Hong Kong have reported a prevalence of 4.1% each, which are the highest rates reported till date.[9],[21] In most of the studies, there has been no gender difference though we found a greater prevalence in boys. In our study, most of the DT were in the mandibular arch. Kramer et al. reported a significant difference of mandibular double teeth over maxillary double teeth.[11] Aguilo et al. and Järvinen reported no significant difference between the arches.[15],[22] Studies in primary dentition show no significant difference between the right and left sides though we found a predominance of DT on the right side. In our study, we found three children with more than one DT. Aguilo et al. in their retrospective study on 6000 children found more than one DT in three children (one contiguous and two bilateral).[15]

The prevalence of ST in primary dentition is lower when compared to permanent dentition. According to Brabant, hyperdontia in the primary dentition has been in existence since the end of the Neolithic period.[23] Various etiological factors for ST have been proposed: Atavism, dichotomy of tooth germ, hyperactive dental lamina, which is the most favored theory,[24],[25] genetic (autosomal recessive with incomplete penetrance or autosomal dominant variety), and multifactorial. Rajab et al. reported that only 2 out of 152 cases with ST were in the age group of 5–6 years (mean age - 10.1 ± 1.9 years).[24] De Oliveira Gomes et al. reported that 22 out of 305 patients with ST were in 3–6 years age group (mean age of 9.3 years).[26] In a study reported from Hong Kong with 208 children with ST and a mean age of 7.3 ± 2.7 years, 42 children were with primary dentition.[27] Salem has studied 2393 children in the age group of 4–12 years and reported a prevalence rate of 0.5%.[28] Kramer et al. have reported a prevalence rate of 0.3% in their study on 1260 children in the age group of 2–5 years.[11] King et al. in their study on 936 children aged 5 years reported a prevalence of 2.8%.[21] Osuji et al. reported that in 1878 children, there is no mention of the mean age group, but the prevalence of ST in primary dentition was 0.58% (11/1878).[29] Whittington reported a prevalence of 0.17% in a survey on 1680 5-year-old children.[8] The reported prevalence of ST in primary dentition in literature ranges from 0.2% (in Caucasians) to 2.8%.[21] The prevalence rate of 0.23% in our study is comparable to the prevalence rate in most of the studies. Male predominance in our study (3:2) is similar to other studies. Bolk et al. classified ST into mesiodens, paramolars, and distomolar, strictly cannot be applied in primary dentition.[30] It is difficult to compare ST by location in various studies in primary dentition because of absence of a uniform classification that could apply only to primary dentition. In our study, the ST were predominantly located in the right maxillary arch associated with central and lateral incisors. There were no cases of ST in the mandibular arch in our study. Kramer et al. have reported ST in mandibular arch in only one case in their series.[11] Supernumerary teeth can also be classified based on the morphology (conical, tuberculate, supplemental, and odontoma) and orientation (normal, inverted, transverse, and ectopic position). Multiple supernumerary teeth are rare (prevalence <1%) and are usually associated with syndromes such as cleft lip and palate, Gardner's syndrome, and cleido-cranial dysplasia.[24],[31] Cases of bilateral supernumerary teeth have also been reported.[26],[31] There are no cases of multiple or bilateral supernumerary teeth in our study. Recently, Mallineni and Nuvvula have proposed a detailed classification for supernumerary teeth, based on location, position, morphology, and orientation.[32] Supernumerary teeth in primary dentition are often overlooked because of normal shape, eruption, and alignment due to the available spacing. Supernumerary teeth in primary dentition usually lead to crowding. In our study, we found that in one case, ST was responsible for a crossbite of the adjacent lateral incisor.

Hypodontia

Polygenic inheritance and environmental factors (invasive and noninvasive factors) have been implicated in hypodontia.[33] Prevalence rate of hypodontia in primary dentition ranges from 0.4% to 4.6%.[21] Clayton and Yonezu have reported high prevalence rates of 4.6% and 2.4%, respectively.[2],[9] Hypodontia could be nonsyndromic or syndromic when it is associated with several syndromes such as ectodermal dysplasia, Reiter's syndrome, Schwartz–Jampel syndrome, and holoprosencephaly.[34] Recent studies have shown an increase in the prevalence of hypodontia in the 20th century.[35] This wide range of difference could be due to the various age groups included in these studies and geographical location (literature shows a high prevalence of hypodontia in Japan when compared to other countries). The prevalence of hypodontia in our study is 0.88%. Most of the studies on primary dentition show no statistically significant gender difference for missing teeth. Nonetheless, the prevalence rate is higher among girls when compared to boys in all these studies. In contrast, the prevalence among boys in our study is high. The most common missing tooth in our study is lower right lateral incisor. In most of the studies, missing teeth are more common in the maxillary arch. In our study, we found a predominance of missing teeth in the mandibular arch. Kramer et al.[11] also have found a similar predominance in mandibular arch (9 out of 14 teeth in their series). Daugaard-Jensen et al.[36] in their study have analyzed the children (1.2–9 years) by the number of missing teeth and found 87 out of 193 (45%) with more than one tooth missing.{45} In our study, we found that 27% of the children with hypodontia had more than one tooth missing. There are no studies on hypodontia with a clear analysis of bilateral missing teeth. Kramer et al. have reported that two out of eight children in their series had bilateral missing teeth.[11] Symmetrical occurrence has been reported to be higher in boys when compared to girls. In our study, the prevalence of bilateral missing teeth was equal between boys and girls. We had a very rare case with a finding of missing bilateral central mandibular incisors. Children with simultaneous occurrence of more than one anomaly have been analyzed in our study, and we found a prevalence of 0.09% (4/4180). Four of them had a double tooth associated with either a hypodontia or ST.

Talon Cusps

Talon cusp refers to a rare developmental dental anomaly characterized by a cusp-like structure projecting from the cingulum area or cement–enamel junction.[37],[38] This condition can occur in the maxillary and mandibular arches of the primary and permanent dentitions.[39] In the present study only talon cusps with a prevalence rate of 0.04% (male: 1, female: 1) observed and in both the cases the anomaly was seen on the left side in the maxillary arch. The exact etiology of talon cusp has not been stated clearly in the literature.[37],[38],[39]

Various studies have shown that in children with primary dentition anomalies, about 60% of them had anomalies of succedaneous teeth.[40] In cases of hypodontia, almost 100% of them had corresponding missing succedaneous teeth. This finding supports the ectodermal mucosal defect as an etiological factor for missing teeth.[8]

In case of double teeth, about 53%–60% of the cases are reported to have anomalies in the succedaneous dentition.[41],[42] As observed in our study, the most common anomaly in succedaneous dentition in the presence of double tooth in primary dentition is hypodontia followed by hyperdontia. Children with supernumerary teeth demonstrated anomalies in succedaneous dentition in 50%–85% of the cases.[43],[44] In our study, 45% of the cases (in those with available radiographs) with primary dentition anomalies had anomalies in succedaneous dentition also. Knowledge on the prevalence of dental anomalies in primary dentition of Indian subcontinent has not been clearly documented. It gives knowledge on different anomalies of primary dentition and their influence on their successors so that anticipatory guidance can be done.


   Conclusions Top


The overall prevalence rate of primary dentition anomalies in our study is 2.27%, which is comparable with most of the reported prevalence rates. This is the first prevalence study based on 4180 children from India. Double tooth has been the most common anomaly in our study. Classification of double tooth into four types helps in planning appropriate treatment. High prevalence of missing teeth in boys and in mandibular arch in our study is in contrast to other studies. We have reported the prevalence rates for triple teeth, oligodontia, and bilateral and multiple anomalies in our study, which would help in comparative studies. Analysis of the succedaneous dental anomalies in children with primary dental anomalies would help in comparative and etiological studies.

Financial support and sponsorship

Nil.

Conflicts of interest

There are no conflicts of interest.

 
   References Top

1.
Mencer LF. Anomalies of the primary dentition. J Dent Child 1955;22:57-62.  Back to cited text no. 1
    
2.
Clayton JM. Congenital dental anomalies occurring in 3557 children. ASDC J Dent Child 1956;23:206-8.  Back to cited text no. 2
    
3.
Grahnen H, Granath LE. Numerical variations in primary dentition and their correlation with the permanent dentition. Odontol Rev 1961;12:348-57.  Back to cited text no. 3
    
4.
Ravn JJ. Aplasia, supernumerary teeth and fused teeth in the primary dentition. An epidemiologic study. Scand J Dent Res 1971;79:1-6.  Back to cited text no. 4
    
5.
Brook AH, Winter GB. Double teeth. A retrospective study of 'geminated' and 'fused' teeth in children. Br Dent J 1970;129:123-30.  Back to cited text no. 5
    
6.
Magnússon TE. Hypodontia, hyperodontia, and double formation of primary teeth in Iceland. An epidemiological study. Acta Odontol Scand 1984;42:137-9.  Back to cited text no. 6
    
7.
Jones ML, Mourino AP, Bowden TA. Evaluation of occlusion, trauma, and dental anomalies in African-American children of metropolitan Headstart programs. J Clin Pediatr Dent 1993;18:51-4.  Back to cited text no. 7
    
8.
Whittington BR, Durward CS. Survey of anomalies in primary teeth and their correlation with the permanent dentition. N Z Dent J 1996;92:4-8.  Back to cited text no. 8
    
9.
Yonezu T, Hayashi Y, Sasaki J, Machida Y. Prevalence of congenital dental anomalies of the deciduous dentition in Japanese children. Bull Tokyo Dent Coll 1997;38:27-32.  Back to cited text no. 9
    
10.
Carvalho JC, Vinker F, Declerck D. Malocclusion, dental injuries and dental anomalies in the primary dentition of Belgian children. Int J Paediatr Dent 1998;8:137-41.  Back to cited text no. 10
    
11.
Kramer PF, Feldens CA, Ferreira SH, Spiguel MH, Feldens EG. Dental anomalies and associated factors in 2- to 5-year-old Brazilian children. Int J Paediatr Dent 2008;18:434-40.  Back to cited text no. 11
    
12.
Kreiborg S, Egemark-Erickson I, Jensen BL, Nystrom M. Disturbances of occlusal development and function. In: Koch G, Modeer T, Poulsen S, Rasmussen P, editors. Pedodontics: A Clinical Approach. Copenhagen: Munksgaard, 1994. p. 275-92.  Back to cited text no. 12
    
13.
Knapp JF, McMahon JI. Treatment of triple tooth: Report of case. J Am Dent Assoc 1984;109:725-7.  Back to cited text no. 13
    
14.
Knezevic A, Travan S, Tarle Z, Sutalo J, Jankovic B, Ciglar I. Double tooth. Coll Antropol 2002;26:667-72.  Back to cited text no. 14
    
15.
Aguilo L, Catala M, Peydro A. Primary triple teeth: Histological and CT morphological study of two case reports. J Clin Pediatr Dent 2001;26:87-92.  Back to cited text no. 15
    
16.
Schalk-van der Weide Y, Beemer FA, Faber JA, Bosman F. Symptomatology of patients with oligodontia. J Oral Rehabil 1994;21:247-61.  Back to cited text no. 16
    
17.
Ripamonti U, Petit JC, Thackeray JF. A supernumerary tooth in a 1.7 million-year-old Australopithecus robustus from Swartkrans, South Africa. Eur J Oral Sci 1999;107:317-21.  Back to cited text no. 17
    
18.
Nelsen K, Tayles N, Domett K. Missing lateral incisors in Iron Age South-East Asians as possible indicators of dental agenesis. Arch Oral Biol 2001;46:963-71.  Back to cited text no. 18
    
19.
Bennazi S, Buti L, Franzo L, Kullmer O, Winzen O, Guppioni G. Report of three fused primary human teeth in an archaeological material. Int J Osteoarchaeol 2010;20:481-5.  Back to cited text no. 19
    
20.
Congenital and Inherited Anomalies of the Teeth, The Merck veterinary manual. Available from: http://www.merckvetmanual.com/mvm/digestive_system/congenital_and_inherited_anomalies_of_the_digestive_system/congenital_and_inherited_anomalies_of_the_teeth.html. [Last retrieved on 2016 Sep 19].  Back to cited text no. 20
    
21.
King NM, Tongkoom S, Itthagarun A, Wong HM, Lee CK. A catalogue of anomalies and traits of the primary dentition of Southern Chinese. J Clin Pediatr Dent 2008;32:139-46.  Back to cited text no. 21
    
22.
Järvinen S, Lehtinen L, Milén A. Epidemiologic study of joined primary teeth in Finnish children. Community Dent Oral Epidemiol 1980;8:201-2.  Back to cited text no. 22
    
23.
Brabant H. Comparison of the characteristics and anomalies of the deciduous and the permanent dentition. J Dent Res 1967;46:897-902.  Back to cited text no. 23
    
24.
Rajab LD, Hamdan MA. Supernumerary teeth: review of the literature and a survey of 152 cases. Int J Paediatr Dent 2002;12:244-54.  Back to cited text no. 24
    
25.
Taylor GS. Characteristics of supernumerary teeth in the primary and permanent dentition. Dent Pract Dent Rec 1972;22:203-8.  Back to cited text no. 25
    
26.
De Oliveira Gomes C, Drummond SN, Jham BC, Abdo EN, Mesquita RA. A survey of 460 supernumerary teeth in Brazilian children and adolescents. Int J Paediatr Dent 2008;18:98-106.  Back to cited text no. 26
    
27.
Anthonappa RP, Omer RS, King NM. Characteristics of 283 supernumerary teeth in Southern Chinese children. Oral Surg Oral Med Oral Pathol Oral Radiol Endod 2008;105:e48-54.  Back to cited text no. 27
    
28.
Salem G. Prevalence of selected dental anomalies in Saudi children from Gizan region. Community Dent Oral Epidemiol 1989;17:162-3.  Back to cited text no. 28
    
29.
Osuji OO, Hardie J. Dental anomalies in a population of SAUDI Arabian children in Tabuk. Saudi Den J 2002;14:11-4.  Back to cited text no. 29
    
30.
Bolk L. The supernumerary upper incisors in man. Deutsch Monatschr P Zahnh 1917;35:185-228.  Back to cited text no. 30
    
31.
Yusof WZ. Non-syndrome multiple supernumerary teeth: literature review. J Can Dent Assoc 1990;56:147-9.  Back to cited text no. 31
    
32.
Mallineni SK, Nuvvula S. Management of supernumerary teeth in children: A narrative overview of published literature. J Craniomaxillofac Dis 2015;4:62-8.  Back to cited text no. 32
    
33.
Peters H, Neubüser A, Kratochwil K, Balling R. Pax9-deficient mice lack pharyngeal pouch derivatives and teeth and exhibit craniofacial and limb abnormalities. Genes Dev 1998;12:2735-47.  Back to cited text no. 33
    
34.
Mallineni SK, Yiu CK, King NM. Schwartz-Jampel syndrome: A review of the literature and case report. Spec Care Dentist 2012;32:105-11.  Back to cited text no. 34
    
35.
Mattheeuws N, Dermaut L, Martens G. Has hypodontia increased in caucasians during the 20th century? A meta-analysis. Eur J Orthod 2004;26:99-103.  Back to cited text no. 35
    
36.
Daugaard-Jensen J, Nodal M, Kjaer I. Pattern of agenesis in the primary dentition: a radiographic study of 193 cases. Int J Paediatr Dent 1997;7:3-7.  Back to cited text no. 36
    
37.
Mallineni SK, Manan NM, Lee CK, King NM. Talon cusp affecting primary dentition in two siblings: A case report. Rom J Morphol Embryol 2013;54:211–3.  Back to cited text no. 37
    
38.
Mallineni SK, Panampally GK, Chen Y, Tian T. Mandibular talon cusps: A Systematic review and data analysis. J Clin Exp Dent 2014;6:e408- 13.  Back to cited text no. 38
    
39.
Nuvvula S, Gaddam KR, Jayachandra B, Mallineni SK. A rare report of mandibular facial talon cusp and its management. J Cons Dent 2014;17:499-502.  Back to cited text no. 39
    
40.
Nik-Hussein NN, Abdul Majid Z. Dental anomalies in the primary dentition: distribution and correlation with the permanent dentition. J Clin Pediatr Dent 1996;21:15-9.  Back to cited text no. 40
    
41.
Barac-Furtinovic V, Skrinjaric I. Double teeth in primary dentition and findings of permanent successors. Acta Stomatol Croat 1991;25:39-43.  Back to cited text no. 41
    
42.
Skrinjaric I, Barac-Furtinovic V. Anomalies of deciduous teeth and findings in permanent dentition. Acta Stomatol Croat 1991;25:151-6.  Back to cited text no. 42
    
43.
Satokata I, Maas R. Msx1 deficient mice exhibit cleft palate and abnormalities of craniofacial and tooth development. Nat Genet 1994;6:348-56.  Back to cited text no. 43
    
44.
Liu W, Wang H, Zhao S, Zhao W, Bai S, Zhao Y, et al. The novel gene locus for agenesis of permanent teeth (He-Zhao deficiency) maps to chromosome 10q11.2. J Dent Res 2001;80:1716-20.  Back to cited text no. 44
    


    Figures

  [Figure 1]
 
 
    Tables

  [Table 1], [Table 2], [Table 3]



 

Top
Print this article  Email this article
 

    

 
  Search
 
  
    Similar in PUBMED
   Search Pubmed for
   Search in Google Scholar for
 Related articles
    Article in PDF (526 KB)
    Citation Manager
    Access Statistics
    Reader Comments
    Email Alert *
    Add to My List *
* Registration required (free)  


    Abstract
   Introduction
    Materials And Me...
   Results
   Discussion
   Conclusions
    References
    Article Figures
    Article Tables

 Article Access Statistics
    Viewed931    
    Printed17    
    Emailed0    
    PDF Downloaded125    
    Comments [Add]    

Recommend this journal


Contact us | Sitemap | Advertise | What's New | Copyright and Disclaimer 
  2005 - Journal of Indian Society of Pedodontics and Preventive Dentistry | Published by Wolters Kluwer - Medknow 
Online since 1st May '05