SavedAdd your journal

Journals / Kırıkkale Üniversitesi Tıp Fakültesi Dergisi / 2026 / Cilt: 28 Sayı: 1

Prevalence Of Congenital Maxillary Lateral Incisor Agenesis According To Angle’s Malocclusion Classification: A Retrospective Study

KONJENİTAL MAKSİLLER LATERAL KESİCİ DİŞ EKSİKLİĞİNİN ANGLE MALOKLÜZYON SINIFLAMASINA GÖRE GÖRÜLME SIKLIĞI: RETROSPEKTİF BİR ÇALIŞMA

İrem Öztürk Kirkpunar(KIRIKKALE ÜNİVERSİTESİ, DİŞ HEKİMLİĞİ FAKÜLTESİ)0000-0001-9630-3708
Türkan Sezen Erhamza(DOKUZ EYLÜL ÜNİVERSİTESİ, DİŞ HEKİMLİĞİ FAKÜLTESİ)0000-0001-9540-9906
Alaattin Tekeli(KIRIKKALE ÜNİVERSİTESİ, DİŞ HEKİMLİĞİ FAKÜLTESİ)0009-0002-0366-1659
Pages
140–144
Publication Date
2026-04-27
🏛️Bibliographic metadata and full text access for this article are provided via DergiPark.
DergiPark Record ↗
✨

AI Summary & Key Takeaways

AI Insight
⚡ TL;DR(Too Long; Didn't Read)

Rather than being specific to a particular malocclusion type, maxillary lateral incisor agenesis appears to be a dental anomaly that can be observed with similar frequencies across different malocclusion patterns.

📌 3 Key Takeaways

🎯
Objective & Hypothesis:Objective: The aim of this study was to evaluate the prevalence of congenital maxillary lateral incisor agenesis according to Angle malocclusion classes and to investigate the association between this dental anomaly and different types of malocclusion.
📊
Key Findings & Data:Materials and Methods: This retrospective study included a total of 234 individuals who applied for orthodontic treatment and met the inclusion criteria.
💡
Conclusion & Impact:Rather than being specific to a particular malocclusion type, maxillary lateral incisor agenesis appears to be a dental anomaly that can be observed with similar frequencies across different malocclusion patterns.
🔬Design:Araştırma Makalesi
📍Scope:Comprehensive Sample
⚙️Variables:Angle maloklüzyon sınıflaması · dental anomali · hipodonti

Abstract

Objective: The aim of this study was to evaluate the prevalence of congenital maxillary lateral incisor agenesis according to Angle malocclusion classes and to investigate the association between this dental anomaly and different types of malocclusion. Materials and Methods: This retrospective study included a total of 234 individuals who applied for orthodontic treatment and met the inclusion criteria. Age, sex, Angle malocclusion classification, and the presence of congenital maxillary lateral incisor agenesis were assessed using clinical records and radiographic examinations. The association between congenital maxillary lateral incisor agenesis and Angle Class I, II, and III malocclusion groups was analyzed using the chi-square test. Statistical significance was set at p<0.05. Results: The mean age of the participants was 14.40±3.35 years; 64.5% were female and 35.5% were male. When the distribution of congenital maxillary lateral incisor agenesis among Angle Class I, II, and III malocclusion groups was compared, no statistically significant difference was found between the groups (χ²=1.239, p=0.538). Conclusion: The findings of this study indicate that congenital maxillary lateral incisor agenesis does not differ significantly among Angle malocclusion classes. Rather than being specific to a particular malocclusion type, maxillary lateral incisor agenesis appears to be a dental anomaly that can be observed with similar frequencies across different malocclusion patterns.

Özet

Amaç: Bu çalışmanın amacı, konjenital maksiller lateral kesici diş eksikliğinin Angle maloklüzyon sınıflarına göre görülme sıklığını değerlendirmek ve bu dental anomalinin farklı maloklüzyon tipleri ile ilişkisini incelemektir. Gereç ve Yöntem: Bu retrospektif çalışmaya, ortodontik tedavi amacıyla başvuran ve dahil edilme kriterlerini karşılayan toplam 234 birey dâhil edilmiştir. Çalışma grubunda yer alan bireylerin yaş, cinsiyet, Angle maloklüzyon sınıflaması ve konjenital maksiller lateral kesici diş varlığı klinik kayıtlar ve radyografik incelemeler aracılığıyla değerlendirilmiştir. Konjenital maksiller lateral kesici diş eksikliği ile Angle Sınıf I, II ve III maloklüzyon grupları arasındaki ilişki Ki-kare testi ile analiz edilmiştir. İstatistiksel anlamlılık düzeyi p<0,05 olarak kabul edilmiştir. Bulgular: Çalışmaya dâhil edilen bireylerin yaş ortalaması 14,40±3,35 yıl olup, %64,5’i kadın, %35,5’i erkektir. Konjenital maksiller lateral kesici diş eksikliğinin Angle Sınıf I, II ve III maloklüzyon grupları arasında dağılımı karşılaştırıldığında, gruplar arasında istatistiksel olarak anlamlı bir fark saptanmamıştır (χ²=1,239, p=0,538). Sonuç: Bu çalışmanın bulguları, konjenital maksiller lateral kesici diş eksikliğinin Angle maloklüzyon sınıfları arasında anlamlı bir farklılık göstermediğini ortaya koymaktadır. Maksiller lateral kesici diş eksikliğinin, belirli bir Angle maloklüzyon sınıfına özgü bir bulgu olmaktan ziyade, farklı maloklüzyon tiplerinde benzer sıklıklarda görülebilen bir dental anomali olduğu düşünülmektedir.

🔖

Cite This Article

Kirkpunar, İ. Ö., Erhamza, T. S., Tekeli, A. (2026). Prevalence Of Congenital Maxillary Lateral Incisor Agenesis According To Angle’s Malocclusion Classification: A Retrospective Study. Kırıkkale Üniversitesi Tıp Fakültesi Dergisi, Cilt: 28 Sayı: 1, 140–144. https://doi.org/10.24938/kutfd.1870221

📄 Full Text PDF Viewer

📄

PDF görüntüleyici hazırlanıyor...

References (39)

  1. Vastardis H. The genetics of human tooth agenesis: new discoveries for understanding dental anomalies. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop. 2000;117(6):650-656.
  2. Calvano Küchler E, De Andrade Risso P, De Castro Costa M, et al. Assessing the proposed association between tooth agenesis and taurodontism in 975 paediatric subjects. Int J Paediatr Dent. 2008;18(3):231-234.
  3. Küchler EC, Risso PA, Costa MC, et al. Studies of dental anomalies in a large group of school children. Arch Oral Biol. 2008;53(10):941-946.
  4. O’Dowling IB, McNamara TG. Congenital absence of permanent teeth among Irish school-children. J Ir Dent Assoc. 1990;36(4):136-138.
  5. Fekonja A. Hypodontia in orthodontically treated children. Eur J Orthod. 2005;27(5):457-460.
  6. Celikoglu M, Kazanci F, Miloglu O, et al. Frequency and characteristics of tooth agenesis among an orthodontic patient population. Med Oral Patol Oral Cir Bucal. 2010;15(5):e797-e801.
  7. Endo T, Ozoe R, Kubota M, et al. A survey of hypodontia in Japanese orthodontic patients. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop. 2006;129(1):29-35.
  8. Stamatiou J, Symons AL. Agenesis of the permanent lateral incisor: distribution, number and sites. J Clin Pediatr Dent. 1991;15(4):244-246.
  9. Woodworth DA, Sinclair PM, Alexander RG. Bilateral congenital absence of maxillary lateral incisors: a craniofacial and dental cast analysis. Am J Orthod. 1985;87(4):280-293.
  10. Aktan A, Kara I, Sener I, et al. Radiographic study of tooth agenesis in the Turkish population. Oral Radiol. 2010;26:95-100.
  11. Cobourne MT. Familial human hypodontia: is it all in the genes? Br Dent J. 2007;203(4):203-208.
  12. Alves-Ferreira M, Pinho T, Sousa A, et al. Identification of genetic risk factors for maxillary lateral incisor agenesis. J Dent Res. 2014;93(5):452-458.
  13. Acevedo AC, Poulter JA, Alves PG, et al. Variability of systemic and oro-dental phenotype in two families with non-lethal Raine syndrome with FAM20C mutations. BMC Med Genet. 2015;16(1):8.
  14. Lu Y, Qian Y, Zhang J, et al. Genetic variants of BMP2 and their association with the risk of non-syndromic tooth agenesis. PLoS One. 2016;11(6):e0158273.
  15. Garn SM, Lewis AB, Vicinus JH. Third molar agenesis and reduction in the number of other teeth. J Dent Res. 1962;41:717.
  16. Garn SM, Lewis AB, Bonne B. Third molar polymorphism and the timing of tooth formation. Nature. 1961;192:989.
  17. Peck S, Peck L, Kataja M. Prevalence of tooth agenesis and peg-shaped maxillary lateral incisor associated with palatally displaced canine anomaly. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop. 1996;110(4):441-443.
  18. Baccetti T. A controlled study of associated dental anomalies. Angle Orthod. 1998;68(3):267-274.
  19. Garib DG, Peck S, Gomes SC. Increased occurrence of dental anomalies associated with second-premolar agenesis. Angle Orthod. 2009;79(3):436-441.
  20. Baccetti T. Tooth rotation associated with aplasia of nonadjacent teeth. Angle Orthod. 1998;68(5):471-474.
  21. Peck S, Peck L, Kataja M. Concomitant occurrence of canine malposition and tooth agenesis: evidence of orofacial genetic fields. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop. 2002;122(6):657-660.
  22. Polder BJ, Van’t Hof MA, Van der Linden FPGM, et al. A meta-analysis of the prevalence of dental agenesis of permanent teeth. Community Dent Oral Epidemiol. 2004;32(3):217-226.
  23. Tavajohi-Kermani H, Kapur R, Sciote JJ. Tooth agenesis and craniofacial morphology in an orthodontic population. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop. 2002;122(1):39-47.
  24. Hedayati Z, Dashlibrun YN. The prevalence and distribution pattern of hypodontia among orthodontic patients in southern Iran. Eur J Dent. 2013;7(Suppl 1):S078-S082.
  25. Al-Amiri A, Tabbaa S, Preston CB, et al. The prevalence of dental anomalies in orthodontic patients at the State University of New York at Buffalo. J Contemp Dent Pract. 2013;14(3):518-523.
  26. Kim YH. Investigation of hypodontia as clinically related dental anomaly: prevalence and characteristics. ISRN Dent. 2011;2011:246135.
  27. Chung LK, Hobson RS, Nunn JH, et al. An analysis of the skeletal relationships in a group of young people with hypodontia. J Orthod. 2000;27(4):315-318.
  28. Pedreira FRO, De Carli ML, Pedreira RPG, et al. Association between dental anomalies and malocclusion in Brazilian orthodontic patients. J Oral Sci. 2016;58(1):75-81.
  29. Acharya PN, Jones SP, Moles D, et al. A cephalometric study to investigate the skeletal relationships in patients with increasing severity of hypodontia. Angle Orthod. 2010;80(4):511-518.
  30. Gravely JF, Johnson DB. Angle’s classification of malocclusion: an assessment of reliability. Br J Orthod. 1974;1(3):79-86.
  31. Bassiouny DS, Afify AR, Baeshen HA, et al. Prevalence of maxillary lateral incisor agenesis and associated skeletal characteristics in an orthodontic patient population. Acta Odontol Scand. 2016;74(6):456-459.
  32. Wisth PJ, Thunold K, Böe OE. Frequency of hypodontia in relation to tooth size and dental arch width. Acta Odontol Scand. 1974;32(3):201-206.
  33. Chung CJ, Han JH, Kim KH. The pattern and prevalence of hypodontia in Koreans. Oral Dis. 2008;14(7):620-625.
  34. Gökkaya B, Motro M, Kargül B. Prevalence and characteristics of non-syndromic hypodontia among Turkish orthodontic patient population. J Int Soc Prev Community Dent. 2015;5(3):170-175.
  35. Gupta SP, Dahal S, Goel K, et al. Association between hypodontia and Angle’s malocclusions among orthodontic patients in Kathmandu, Nepal. Int J Dent. 2022;2022:9595920.
  36. Costa AMG, Trevizan M, Matsumoto MAN, et al. Association between tooth agenesis and skeletal malocclusions. J Oral Maxillofac Res. 2017;8(2):e3.
  37. Ali B, Hussain SS. Association between hypodontia and Angle’s malocclusion. J Pak Med Assoc. 2016;66(Suppl 3):S27-S29.
  38. Vahid-Dastjerdi E, Borzabadi-Farahani A, Mahdian M, et al. Non-syndromic hypodontia in an Iranian orthodontic population. J Oral Sci. 2010;52(3):455-461.
  39. De Stefani A, Bruno G, Frezza A, et al. Association between teeth agenesis and Angle’s classes in an Italian population. Minerva Dent Oral Sci. 2021;70(1):21-25.