Anterior tooth relations in Kenyan Africans

Prevalence of Orthodontic Malocclusions in Healthy Children and Adolescents: A Systematic Review

The purpose of this study was to systematically review the literature regarding the prevalence of malocclusion and different orthodontic features in children and adolescents. Methods: The digital databases PubMed, Cochrane, Embase, Open Grey, and Web of Science were searched from inception to November 2021. Epidemiological studies, randomized controlled trials, clinical trials, and comparative studies involving subjects ≤ 18 years old and focusing on the prevalence of malocclusion and different orthodontic features were selected. Articles written in English, Dutch, French, German, Spanish, and Portuguese were included. Three authors independently assessed the eligibility, extracted the data from, and ascertained the quality of the studies. Since all of the included articles were non-randomized, the MINORS tool was used to score the risk of bias. Results: The initial electronic database search identified a total of 6775 articles. After the removal of duplicates, 4646 articles were screened using the title and abstract. A total of 415 full-text articles were assessed, and 123 articles were finally included for qualitative analysis. The range of prevalence of Angle Class I, Class II, and Class III malocclusion was very large, with a mean prevalence of 51.9% (SD 20.7), 23.8% (SD 14.6), and 6.5% (SD 6.5), respectively. As for the prevalence of overjet, reversed overjet, overbite, and open bite, no means were calculated due to the large variation in the definitions, measurements, methodologies, and cut-off points among the studies. The prevalence of anterior crossbite, posterior crossbite, and crossbite with functional shift were 7.8% (SD 6.5), 9.0% (SD 7.34), and 12.2% (SD 7.8), respectively. The prevalence of hypodontia and hyperdontia were reported to be 6.8% (SD 4.2) and 1.8% (SD 1.3), respectively. For impacted teeth, ectopic eruption, and transposition, means of 4.9% (SD 3.7), 5.4% (SD 3.8), and 0.5% (SD 0.5) were found, respectively. Conclusions: There is an urgent need to clearly define orthodontic features and malocclusion traits as well as to reach consensus on the protocols used to quantify them. The large variety in methodological approaches found in the literature makes the data regarding prevalence of malocclusion unreliable.

Prevalence of anterior open bite in children and adolescents: a systematic review and meta-analysis

PURPOSE

Anterior open bite is defined by the lack of incisal contact between the teeth in centric relation. The aim of this study was to determine the prevalence of anterior open in children and adolescents.

METHODS

This systematic review included a search in the databases: PubMed, Scopus, Web of Science, LILACS, Google Scholar, and ProQuest. The acronym PECOS was considered: (P) children and adolescents, (E) presence of anterior open bite, (C) not applicable, (O) prevalence, and (S) observational studies. The risk of bias assessment was carried out using the Joanna Briggs Institute Critical Appraisal Checklist for Studies Reporting Prevalence Data. The prevalence meta-analyses were performed using MedCalc^® software. The certainty of the evidence was determined with the GRADE approach.

RESULTS

26 studies were included. Eleven studies were judged at low, seven at moderate, and eight at high risk of bias. The overall prevalence of anterior open bite was 16.52% (95% CI 12.34-21.17) in children and adolescents. The prevalence was 19.38% (95% CI 13.77-25.69) in South America. The prevalence of anterior open bite was 22.67% (95% CI 16.56-29.43) among females and 16.99% (95% CI 11.77-22.94) among males. The prevalence of anterior open bite was 18.84% (95% CI 13.88-24.38) in the primary dentition, and 14.26% (95% CI 7.67-22.46) in the mixed dentition. The overall certainty of the evidence was very low.

CONCLUSION

The overall prevalence of anterior open bite was 16.52% in children and adolescents aged 2-16 years. Giving the limitations of a prevalence meta-analysis, the extrapolation of the results should be cautious.

REGISTRATION NUMBER

CRD42020183162, 10 July 2020.

[Does gender make a difference in orthodontics? A literature review]

OBJECTIVES

The objective of this literature review is to investigate whether the gender of patients and practitioners makes any difference to orthodontic treatment.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

Sixty-nine articles were selected, the vast majority of which studied patient gender.

RESULTS

Young females are the category of patients which most often apply for orthodontic treatment, probably because of their higher aesthetic demands, despite their objective needs being no greater. Aesthetic, skeletal and dental analyses reveal an obvious dimorphism with larger dimensions in males, especially for the nose, cheekbones, mouth and mandibular canines. Nevertheless, cephalometric angular values do not vary significantly between male and female individuals. Growth is quantitatively greater in males. It also occurs later, as does eruption and maturation of their teeth. Response to the different orthodontic / orthopedic therapies would appear not to differ according to the sex of the patient.

DISCUSSION

These results, however, need to be qualified according to the country concerned, the patients' life style and mind frames, as these can modify or influence the studied parameters.

Analysis of dimensions and shapes of maxillary and mandibular dental arch in Korean young adults

PURPOSE

The aim of this study was to investigate dental arch dimensions and to classify arch shape in Korean young adults.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

The sample included 50 Koreans with age ranging from 24 to 32 years. Maxillary and mandibular casts were fabricated using irreversible hydrocolloid and type III dental stones. Incisor-canine distance, incisor-1^st molar distance, incisor-2^nd molar distance, intercanine distance, inter-1^st molar distance, and inter-2^nd molar distance in both the maxillary and mandibular arch were measured using a three-dimensional measuring device. The dental arch was classified into three groups using five ratios from the measured values by the K-means clustering method. The data were analyzed with one-way analysis of variance.

RESULTS

Arch lengths (IM2D, incisal-2^nd molar distance) were 44.13 mm in the maxilla and 40.40 mm in the mandible. Arch widths (M2W, inter 2^nd molar width) were 64.12 mm in the maxilla and 56.37 mm in the mandible. Distribution of the dental arch form was mostly ovoid shape (maxilla 52% and mandible 56%), followed by the V-shape and the U-shape. The arch width for the U-shape was broader than for the other forms.

CONCLUSION

This study establishes new reference data for dental arch dimensions for young Korean adults. The most common arch form is the ovoid type in the maxilla and mandible of Koreans. Clinicians should be aware of these references and classify arch type before and during their dental treatment for effective and harmonized results in Koreans.

Prevalence and factors associated with anterior open bite in 2 to 5 year old children in Benin city, Nigeria

BACKGROUND

Anterior open bite is said to exist when there is an actual vertical gap between the upper and lower incisors with the teeth in centric occlusion. This could occur in the anterior or posterior region, and may be attributed to the supra eruption of the posterior teeth or the infra eruption of the anterior teeth and it is common in both adults and children.

OBJECTIVE

To evaluate the prevalence of anterior open bite (AOB) in 2 to 5 -year -old children and the aetiological factors responsible for it.

METHODS

The study group comprised 1031 children (429 boys and 602 girls) between the ages of 2 to 5-years, who were examined for the presence of AOB and the relationship with various oral habits.

RESULTS

AOB was present in 29 (2.8%) of the subjects. Sucking habits were observed in 267 (25.9%) children. Only 29(10.9%) of the children with sucking habits had an AOB which was asymmetric in 20 (7.5%) and symmetric in 9 (3.4%). The asymmetric AOB was significantly higher in children with thumb sucking habits than in finger suckers (P<0.05). There was no significant difference between frequency, duration of sucking habits and AOB. The 4-year olds showed a significant difference in the number of children with AOB (P<0.05). Sucking habits of 1-2 hours and duration of 24 to 60 months exhibited the highest prevalence of an AOB in 13 (44.8%) and 17 (58.6%)children respectively.

CONCLUSION

The prevalence of AOB in this study is 2.8%. Thumb sucking is the most important aetiological factor in the formation of an AOB in 2 to 5-year-old children.