These tools will no longer be maintained as of December 31, 2024. Archived website can be found here. PubMed4Hh GitHub repository can be found here. Contact NLM Customer Service if you have questions.


Pubmed for Handhelds

PUBMED FOR HANDHELDS

Search MEDLINE/PubMed

  • Title: Comparative study of dental anomalies assessed with panoramic radiographs of Down syndrome and non-Down syndrome patients.
    Author: Mayoral-Trias MA, Llopis-Perez J, Puigdollers Pérez A.
    Journal: Eur J Paediatr Dent; 2016 Mar; 17(1):65-9. PubMed ID: 26949243.
    Abstract:
    AIM: The aim of this study was to compare the prevalence of dental anomalies from panoramic radiographs of age-matched individuals with and without Down Syndrome (DS). STUDY DESIGN: This is a retrospective cross-sectional study. A group of 41 patients (19 female and 22 male) with Down Syndrome (DS), mean age 10.6 ± 1.4 and a control group of 42 non- DS patients (26 female and 16 male), mean age 11.1 ± 1.3 were studied. METHODS: This study examined the medical history and a panoramic radiograph of each patient. The dental anomalies studied were agenesis of permanent teeth (except third molars), size and shape maxillary lateral anomalies and maxillary canine eruption path anomalies. STATISTICS: The groups were compared using Mann-Whitney and Wilcoxon non-parametric tests (p<0.05). Rho Spearman correlation coefficient was applied for associations. Results Agenesis of one permanent tooth was found in 73.17% of DS subjects and two or more permanent teeth in more than 50% (p<0.001). Maxillary lateral incisor was the most frequently absent tooth followed by mandibular second premolar, mandibular lateral incisor, maxillary second premolar and mandibular central incisor. No significant differences were detected between maxilla and mandible on either side. No differences in gender were observed. Significant differences were found for size and shape anomalies of maxillary lateral incisors, as well as for canine eruption anomalies (p<0.05). No gender differences were observed for either variable. No association was found between these two variables in the DS group. CONCLUSIONS: More dental anomalies were present in the DS group than in the control group, which implied that DS patients need periodical dental and orthodontic supervision so as to prevent or control subsequent oral problems.
    [Abstract] [Full Text] [Related] [New Search]