- Email: [email protected]
Supplemental canines A case report
Journal
of Dentistry,
1, 261-262
Supplemental
canines
A case report W. J. Hume, Flight
B.D.S.
Lieutenant,
Royal Air Force, Bruggen,
ABSTRACT A case is described of an unusual occurrence of 3 extra canines. This is rare in view of the wellformed nature of those in the mandible, this being an uncommon site for supplemental canines. CASE REPORT A I?'-YEAR-OLD male
was found to have 76543C21112334567 following teeth present: 76543321,12334567
the
Of the 7 permanent canines present, the 4 in the mandible were normally formed and equal in size, whereas the extra canine in the maxilla was
unerupted (Figs. I, 2).
Germany
After 2000 dental inspections of male adults, the author is in agreement with Stafne that missing teeth are more frequent than extra teeth. The prevalence figures for supernumerary teeth vary, Grahnen and Lindahl (1961) quoting them as between l-7 and 3.1 per cent; Parry and Iyer (1961) 2.5 per cent, and Stafne (1932) 0.9 per cent. The rarity of supernumerary canines can be appreciated from Stafne’s (1932) survey of 48,500 patients, in whom he found only 3 supernumerary canines, none of which approached the size of normal ones.
true.
Fig. I.-View of the lower arch showing 4 normally formed canines.
Fig. 2.-Occlusal
DISCUSSION seems to be some doubt as to which is the more common: the prevalence of oligodontia or of supernumerary teeth. Macphee (1935) stated that the presence of extra teeth is more usual than the absence of teeth, whereas Stafne (1932) found the reverse to be
The sex distribution of extra canines appears to be approximately 2: 1 in favour of males (Lind, 1959; Parry and Iyer, 1961), and it is generally agreed that they usually present in the maxilla (Goh, 1954; Isokawa and Ozaki, 1959; Stevenson, 1965). Stafne (1964) suggests that it is exceedingly rare to find
THERE
radiograph of the upper jaw.
Journal
supernumerary canines whose size approaches or equals that of the normal canine, and it is very unusual to find more than one extra canine in a patient. On the basis of this the case described here would seem to be very rare.
Acknowledgement The author wishes to thank Air Vice-Marshal C. H. Beamish, C.B., Q.H.D.S., F.D.S., Director of Dental Services (R.A.F.), for permission to publish this paper.
of Dentistry,
Vol. 1 /No.
6
REFERENCES GOH, S. W. (1954), Dent. Rec., 74,22. GRAHNEN, H., and LINDAHL, B. (1961), Odont. Revy, 12, 290. ISOKAWA,S., and OZAKI, T. (1959), Oral Surg., 12, 730. LIND, V. (1959), Odont. Revy, 10,176. MACPHEE,G. C. (1935), Br. dent. J., l&59. PARRY, R. R., and IYER, V. S. (1961), Ibid., 111, 257. STAFNE,E. C. (1932), Dent. Cosmos, 74,653. - - (1964),Oral Surg., 17,205. STEVENSON, W. (1965), Br. dent. J., 118,287.
of Dentistry,
1, 261-262
Supplemental
canines
A case report W. J. Hume, Flight
B.D.S.
Lieutenant,
Royal Air Force, Bruggen,
ABSTRACT A case is described of an unusual occurrence of 3 extra canines. This is rare in view of the wellformed nature of those in the mandible, this being an uncommon site for supplemental canines. CASE REPORT A I?'-YEAR-OLD male
was found to have 76543C21112334567 following teeth present: 76543321,12334567
the
Of the 7 permanent canines present, the 4 in the mandible were normally formed and equal in size, whereas the extra canine in the maxilla was
unerupted (Figs. I, 2).
Germany
After 2000 dental inspections of male adults, the author is in agreement with Stafne that missing teeth are more frequent than extra teeth. The prevalence figures for supernumerary teeth vary, Grahnen and Lindahl (1961) quoting them as between l-7 and 3.1 per cent; Parry and Iyer (1961) 2.5 per cent, and Stafne (1932) 0.9 per cent. The rarity of supernumerary canines can be appreciated from Stafne’s (1932) survey of 48,500 patients, in whom he found only 3 supernumerary canines, none of which approached the size of normal ones.
true.
Fig. I.-View of the lower arch showing 4 normally formed canines.
Fig. 2.-Occlusal
DISCUSSION seems to be some doubt as to which is the more common: the prevalence of oligodontia or of supernumerary teeth. Macphee (1935) stated that the presence of extra teeth is more usual than the absence of teeth, whereas Stafne (1932) found the reverse to be
The sex distribution of extra canines appears to be approximately 2: 1 in favour of males (Lind, 1959; Parry and Iyer, 1961), and it is generally agreed that they usually present in the maxilla (Goh, 1954; Isokawa and Ozaki, 1959; Stevenson, 1965). Stafne (1964) suggests that it is exceedingly rare to find
THERE
radiograph of the upper jaw.
Journal
supernumerary canines whose size approaches or equals that of the normal canine, and it is very unusual to find more than one extra canine in a patient. On the basis of this the case described here would seem to be very rare.
Acknowledgement The author wishes to thank Air Vice-Marshal C. H. Beamish, C.B., Q.H.D.S., F.D.S., Director of Dental Services (R.A.F.), for permission to publish this paper.
of Dentistry,
Vol. 1 /No.
6
REFERENCES GOH, S. W. (1954), Dent. Rec., 74,22. GRAHNEN, H., and LINDAHL, B. (1961), Odont. Revy, 12, 290. ISOKAWA,S., and OZAKI, T. (1959), Oral Surg., 12, 730. LIND, V. (1959), Odont. Revy, 10,176. MACPHEE,G. C. (1935), Br. dent. J., l&59. PARRY, R. R., and IYER, V. S. (1961), Ibid., 111, 257. STAFNE,E. C. (1932), Dent. Cosmos, 74,653. - - (1964),Oral Surg., 17,205. STEVENSON, W. (1965), Br. dent. J., 118,287.