Distribution of congenitally missing teeth and treatment options for the lower second premolars in patients referred to special care

Abstract

Objective

The aim was to evaluate the distribution of congenitally missing teeth and the treatment provided for congenitally missing lower second premolars in an eleven-year cohort of patients referred to a publicly funded source of specialist care.

Material and methods

This was a retrospective, register-based cohort study. Search for patients referred to a publicly funded source of specialist care based on ICD10 diagnosis code K00.00 (partial anodontia) and treatment codes EBA00, EBA05, EBA10, EBA12, EBB10 and EBB20 during the period 1.1.2009–27.10.2019 yielded 232 patients (151 females, 81 males), of whom 218, born in 1941–2009, were eligible. Data collected from medical files were presented in the form of descriptive statistics and analysed using Fisher’s exact test.

Results

The 218 subjects possessed 876 congenitally missing teeth (males 307, females 569) (third molars excluded). The most common missing teeth were upper second premolars and lateral incisors, and lower second premolars and central incisors. No difference in laterality was found. Statistically significant associations were found between the choice of treatment and both the patient’s age at referral and the patient’s year of birth. Most common treatment for adult patients (age 18–56 years) was placement of an implant (67%), while autotransplantation (11%) was the preferred option for children at the mixed dentition stage (age 9–15 years).

Conclusions

The congenitally missing teeth most commonly involved in referrals of patients to publicly funded specialist care were lower second premolars. The most frequent treatment was insertion of an implant for adults and autotransplantation at the mixed dentition stage.

Keywords:

• Autotransplantation
• hypodontia
• implant
• orthodontics
• prosthodontics

Acknowledgements

The authors thank the Academy of Finland (#326189) for the funding we received for this research.

Disclosure statement

No potential conflict of interest was reported by the author(s).