4.1 Article

A retrospective study of 889 injured permanent teeth

Journal

DENTAL TRAUMATOLOGY
Volume 26, Issue 6, Pages 466-475

Publisher

WILEY
DOI: 10.1111/j.1600-9657.2010.00924.x

Keywords

-

Ask authors/readers for more resources

The aim of this study was to investigate pre-injury factors, causes of dental injuries and healing complications after traumatic injuries to permanent teeth. The analysed sample comprised 889 permanent teeth of 384 patients, who were treated in the Dentistry Department in Faculty Hospital in Pilsen. Enamel-dentin fractures [233 teeth (26.2%)] and lateral luxations [207 teeth (23.3%)] were the most frequent injuries. The age of the patients at the time of injury varied between 7 and 65 years. Predominantly, children were affected [587 injured teeth (66.0%)]. The most frequent causes of injuries in patients older than 11 years were various sport activities, predominantly bicycling. Pulp necrosis was observed in 239 teeth (26.9%). It was the most frequent post-traumatic complication in all types of dental traumas. Teeth with a completed root formation demonstrated a higher prevalence of pulp necrosis than teeth with an incomplete root formation in all types of luxation injuries. External root resorption was observed in 144 teeth. The rate of inflammatory resorption differed between the various types of luxation injuries (extrusive luxation 5.6%, lateral luxation 11.6%, intrusive luxation 33.3%). Following avulsion and replantation, active inflammatory resorptions were diagnosed in 13 (26.5%) of 49 replanted teeth and ankylosis/replacement resorptions were observed in 21 (42.9%) of 49 replanted teeth. After avulsion, primarily, immature teeth were affected by these complications. Within the observation period of 5 years, 39 teeth (4.4%) had to be removed (16 teeth with root fractures, 19 avulsed and replanted teeth, 3 luxated teeth, 1 tooth with crown-root fracture).

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.1
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available