Liceága RR, Ramírez GJ

Language: Spanish
References: 18
Page: 12-15
PDF size: 83.45 Kb.

ABSTRACT

Objective. The purpose of this study was the one to make emphasis in the clinical importance of the retention of teeth in the population. Material and methods. A descriptive study from July of 2005 to December of 2006 was made. The evaluation was made to all patients who came for consultation for retained dental organs. Results. The total of the sample was of 552 patients, of whom 223 where men and 329 were women. Conclusion. The mandibular third molar was the retained teeth most common found.

REFERENCES

1. Archer HW. Cirugía Bucal. Atlas Paso a Paso de Técnicas quirúrgicas. 2da Ed. Argentina: Editorial Mundi; 1978, Tomo 1.

2. Dachi S, Howell F. A survey of 3,874 routine full mouth radiographs, I. A Study of retained roots and teeth. Oral Medicine, Oral Surgery, Oral Pathology 1961; 14(8): 916-24.

3. Johnston W. Treatment of palatally impacted canine teeth. Am J Orthod 1969; 56(6): 589-96.

4. Fournier A, Turcotte J, Bernard C. Orthodontic considerations in the treatment of maxillary impacted canines. Am J Orthod 1982; 81(3): 236-9.

5. Moss J. An orthodontic approach to surgical problems. Am J Orthod 1975; 68(4): 363-90.

6. Mead SV. Incidence of Impacted Teeth. Inter J Orthod 1930; 6: 885-90.

7. Rocher A. Displaced and Impacted Canines. Inter J Orthod 1929; 15: 1003-20.

8. Esen E. Evaluation of patient-controlled remifentanil application in third molar surgery. J Oral Maxillofac Surg 2005; 63: 457-63.

9. Trujillo F. Retenciones dentarias en región anterior. Práctica Odontológica 1990; 11(5): 29-35.

10. Sandbu S. Radiographic Evaluation of the Status of Third Molars in the Asian- Indian Students. J Oral Maxillofac Surg 2005; 63: 640-5.

11. Benediktsdottir. Mandibular Third removal: Risk indicators for extended operation time, postoperative pain, and complications. Oral Surg Med Oral Pathol Oral Radiol Endod 2004; 97: 438-46.

12. Garcia G, Pell G. Classification is unreliable as a predictor of difficulty in extracting impacted lower third molars. British Journal of Oral and Maxillofacial Surgery 2000; 38: 585-7.

13. Yuasa H. Classification of surgical difficulty in extracting impacted third molars. British Journal of Oral and Maxillofacial Surgery 2002; 40: 26-31.

14. Lewis P. Preorthodontic surgery in the treatment of impacted canines. Am J Orthod 1971; 60(4): 382-97.

15. Fastlicht S. Treatment of impacted canines. Am J Orthod 1954; 40(12): 891-905.

16. Sittitavornwong S. The Necessity of Routine Clinic Follow-Up Visits After Third Molar Removal. J Oral Maxillofac Surg 2005; 63: 1278-82.

17. Mateos CI, Hernández FF. Prevalencia de inclusión dental y patología asociada en pacientes de la Clínica de la Facultad de Odontología Mexicali de la UABC. Rev Odont Mex 2005; 9(2): 84-91.

18. Sarmiento P, Herrera AM. Agenesia de terceros molares en estudiantes de odontología de la Universidad del Valle entre 16 y 25 años. Colomb Med 2004; 35(Supl 1): 5-9.