SavedAdd your journal

Journals / Süleyman Demirel Üniversitesi Sağlık Bilimleri Dergisi / 2020 / Cilt: 11 - Sayı: 4

Relationship of Impacted Maxillary Third Molar Teeth with Sella Turcica Morphology

Gömülü Maksiller Üçüncü Molar Dişlerin Sella Turcica Morfolojisi ile İlişkisi

Sanaz SANDRY
Cansu Gül KOCA
Pages
389–398
DOI
—
🏛️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)

Bilateral maxillary third molar impaction is more common in female individuals with Class II malocclusion than in male individuals.

📌 3 Key Takeaways

🎯
Objective & Hypothesis:Objective: To evaluate the relationship between the morphological variations of sella turcica and maxillary third molar teeth impaction.
📊
Key Findings & Data:Material and Method: The material of this study consisted panoramic radiographs and lateral cephalometric radiographs of 170 individuals (79 men, 91 women, mean age 19.02 ± 1.62) (Class I, 79; Class II, 71; Class III, 20).
💡
Conclusion & Impact:Bilateral maxillary third molar impaction is more common in female individuals with Class II malocclusion than in male individuals.
🔬Design:Research Article
📍Scope:Comprehensive Sample
⚙️Variables:Sella Turcica · Maksiller Üçüncü Molar · Sefalometri

Abstract

Objective: To evaluate the relationship between the morphological variations of sella turcica and maxillary third molar teeth impaction. Material and Method: The material of this study consisted panoramic radiographs and lateral cephalometric radiographs of 170 individuals (79 men, 91 women, mean age 19.02 ± 1.62) (Class I, 79; Class II, 71; Class III, 20). Individuals, included in this study, had impacted maxillary third molars unilaterally (n = 121) or bilaterally (n = 49). The variations of the sella turcica morphology evaluated in 6 different sub-groups on the individual lateral cephalometric radiographs. And the unilateral or bilateral impaction was investigated in terms of skeletal anomaly. Chi-Square analysis comparison tests were used to evaluate the groups. Results: 170 individuals with impacted maxillary third molar, 91 were female and 79 were male. There is no statistical difference between them in terms of unilateral and bilateral impacted teeth (p> 0.05). Of the 170 molar cases impaction in total, 79 are Class I, 71 are Class II, and 20 are Class III. There is no statistical difference between unilateral and bilateral buried cases in facial skeletal classification (p> 0.05). In this study, which included 170 individuals, when the impacted teeth were evaluated as total, the 2nd sella variation was observed in the individuals in this study (170/79) (46.5%). This is statistically significant (p <0.001). The most evident sella variation in unilateral 121 impacted molar is 2 (121/69) (57%). This is followed by the sella 1, sella 4, sella 6 variations, respectively. In the bilateral 49 embedded molar, the prominent sella variation is 6 (49/21) (42.9%). This is followed by the sella 4, sella 2, sella 1 variations, respectively. However, these are not statistically significant (p> 0.05). Conclusion: Sella 2 variation is the one most associated with impaction. Bilateral maxillary third molar impaction is more common in female individuals with Class II malocclusion than in male individuals.

Özet

Objective: The aim of this study was to compare the relationship between the morphology and the morphology of sella tursica in 20 upper teeth. Materials and Methods: The material of this study was divided into 3 skeletal groups (classes 1, 2 and 3) of 151 individuals (67 males, 84 females, mean age 19.02 ± 1.62) on panoramic and lateral cephalometric films. Variations in different morphologies due to Sella tursica bridging in lateral cephalometric films of individuals were evaluated. Results: One-Way ANOVA and Tukey multiple comparison tests were used to evaluate the groups. There was no statistically significant difference between the skeletal groups whether the maxillary third molar teeth were unilateral or bilateral. On the other hand, unilateral buried 20 year old females were found to be statistically significant in the normal morphology of sellan among the groups depending on the morphology. Conclusion: Unilateral or bilateral unilateral maxillary third molars revealed no significant difference in terms of sella tursica morphology. In our study, normal variation of the most common sella tursica was observed in individuals with different skeletal anomalies.

🔖

Cite This Article

SANDRY, S., KOCA, C. G. (2020). Relationship of Impacted Maxillary Third Molar Teeth with Sella Turcica Morphology. Süleyman Demirel Üniversitesi Sağlık Bilimleri Dergisi, Cilt: 11 - Sayı: 4, 389–398. https://ajindex.com/articles/360253

📄 Full Text PDF Viewer

📄

PDF görüntüleyici hazırlanıyor...

References (16)

  1. Yassir AY, Nahidh M, Yousif HA. Size and morphology of sella turcica in Iraqi adults. Mustansiria Dent J 2010;(7):23-30
  2. Mutluer S. Sella turcica. Childs Nerv Syst 2006;(22):333
  3. Becktor JP, Einersen S, Kjaer I. A sella turcica bridge in subjects with severe craniofacial deviations. Eur J Orthod 2000;(22):69-74
  4. Meyer-Marcotty P, Reuther T, Stellzig-Eisenhauer A. Bridging of the sella turcica in skeletal Class III subjects. Eur J Orthod 2010;(32):148-53
  5. Haji Ghadimi M, Amini F, Hamedi S, Rakhshan V. Associations among sella turcica bridging, atlas arcuate foramen (ponticulus posticus) development, atlas posterior arch deficiency, and the occurrence of palatally displaced canine impaction. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop 2017;(151):513-20
  6. Kjær I. Sella turcica morphology and the pituitary gland- a new contribution to craniofacial diagnostics based on histology and neuroradiology. Eur J Orthod 2015;(37):28-36
  7. Leonardi R, Barbato E, Vichi M, Caltabiano M. Skeletal anomalies and normal variants in patients with palatally displaced canines. Angle Orthod 2009;(79):727-32
  8. Leonardi R, Barbato E, Vichi M, Caltabiano M. A sella turcica bridge in subjects with denta lanomalies. Eur J Orthod 2006;(28):580-5
  9. Alkofide EA. The shape and size of the sella turcica in skeletal Class I, Class II, and Class III Saudi subjects. Eur J Orthod 2007;(29):457-63
  10. Shrestha GK, Pokharel PR, Gyawali R, BhattaraiB,Giri J. The morphology and bridging of the sella turcica in adult orthodontic patients. BMC Oral Health 2018;(18):45
  11. Sobuti F, Dadgar S, Seifi A, Musavi SJ, Hadian H. Relationship between bridging and dimensions of sella turcica with classification of craniofacial skeleton. Pol J Radiol 2018;(83):120-6
  12. Zagga AD, Ahmed H, Tadros AA, Saidu SA. Description of the normal variants of the anatomical shapes of the sella turcica using plain radiographs: experience from Sokoto, Northwestern Nigeria. Ann Afr Med 2008;(7):77-81
  13. Camp JD. The normal and pathologic anatomy of the sella turcica as revealed at necropsy. Radiology 1923;(1):65-73
  14. Bergland RM, Ray BS, Torack RM. Anatomical variations in the pituitary gland and adjacent structures in 225 human autopsy cases. J Neurosurg 1968;(28):93-99
  15. Carstens M. Die sella diagnostik. Fortschr Geb Rontgenstrahlen 1949;(71):257-272
  16. Axelsson S, Storhaug K, Kjaer I. Post-natal size and morphology of the sella turcica. Longitudinal cephalometric standards for Norwegians between 6 and