Abstract
Abstract
Objective
This cross-sectional study investigated the association between fungiform papillae (FP) numbers and tooth number anomalies in children, considering variables related to hypodontia and hyperdontia. The aim was to explore this association while adjusting for age and sex differences.
Materials and methods
A total of 144 children (aged 8–10) were categorized into hypodontia (n = 48), hyperdontia (n = 48), and control groups (n = 48). Clinical and radiographic diagnoses were used to classify tooth number anomalies. Hypodontia was categorized by number and location, while hyperdontia was categorized by number, shape, and location. FP were assessed using the Denver Papillae Protocol. Data analyses were performed using NCSS software, with p < 0.05 considered statistically significant.
Results
The hypodontia group (22.5 ± 8.4) exhibited significantly lower FP than the control group (30.4 ± 9.2) and the hyperdontia group (27.9 ± 7.8) (p < 0.0005, p = 0.003, respectively). No significant difference existed between the hyperdontia and control groups. FP numbers in hypodontia subgroups showed no significant differences based on teeth agenesis numbers or locations. Similarly, hyperdontia subgroup analyses revealed no significant differences in FP numbers based on supernumerary teeth shapes (supplemental, conical, tuberculoid, paramolar) or the numbers of supernumerary teeth.
Conclusions
The lower FP numbers in children with hypodontia suggested an association between teeth and FP number. However, the non-significant difference in FP numbers with hyperdontia underscored the complexity of tooth development, warranting further investigations.
Clinical relevance
Children with hypodontia may exhibit distinct FP numbers compared to those without tooth number anomalies.
Funder
Istanbul Gelişim University
Publisher
Springer Science and Business Media LLC
Reference43 articles.
1. Zhang H, Gong X, Xu X, Wang X, Sun Y (2023) Tooth number abnormality: from bench to bedside. Int J Oral Sci 15(1):5
2. Brook A, Jernvall J, Smith R, Hughes T, Townsend G (2014) The dentition: the outcomes of morphogenesis leading to variations of tooth number, size, and shape. Aust Dent J 59:131–142. https://doi.org/10.1111/adj.12160
3. Bloomquist RF, Parnell RF, Phillips KA, Fowler TE, Yu TY, Sharpe PT, Streelman JT, Shubin NH (2015) Coevolutionary patterning of teeth and taste buds. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA 112:E5954–E5962
4. Dinnella C, Monteleone E, Piochi M, Spinelli S, Prescott J, Pierguidi L, Gasperi F, Laureati M, Pagliarini E, Predieri S, Torri L, Barbieri S, Valli E, Bianchi P, Braghieri A, Caro AD, di Monaco R, Favotto S, Moneta E (2018) Individual variation in PROP status, FP density, and responsiveness to taste stimuli in a large population sample. Chem Senses 43:697–710
5. Kondo S, Miura T (2011) Reaction-diffusion model as a framework for understanding biological pattern formation. Science 329(5999):1616–1620