Table of Contents Author Guidelines Submit a Manuscript
Case Reports in Dentistry
Volume 2018, Article ID 5014179, 6 pages
https://doi.org/10.1155/2018/5014179
Case Report

Nonsyndromic Bilateral Posterior Maxillary Supernumerary Teeth: A Report of Two Cases and Review

1Department of Orthodontics, Dhulikhel Hospital, Kathmandu University School of Medical Sciences, Dhulikhel, Nepal
2Department of Oral Medicine and Radiology, Dhulikhel Hospital, Kathmandu University School of Medical Sciences, Dhulikhel, Nepal
3Oral and Maxillofacial Radiology, Applied Oral Sciences, Faculty of Dentistry, University of Hong Kong, Pokfulam, Hong Kong
4Department of Oral and Maxillofacial Surgery, Dhulikhel Hospital, Kathmandu University School of Medical Sciences, Dhulikhel, Nepal

Correspondence should be addressed to Ravi Kumar Mahto; moc.liamg@othamivarrd

Received 25 January 2018; Accepted 18 March 2018; Published 11 April 2018

Academic Editor: Gavriel Chaushu

Copyright © 2018 Ravi Kumar Mahto et al. This is an open access article distributed under the Creative Commons Attribution License, which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.

Abstract

Supernumerary tooth/hyperdontia is defined as those teeth which are present in excess of the usual distribution of twenty deciduous and thirty-two permanent teeth. It can be seen in both syndromic and nonsyndromic patients. In Nepalese population, prevalence of supernumerary tooth is documented to be 1.6%. To the best of our knowledge, no studies from Nepal have reported the incidence of bilateral maxillary paramolars or the combination of unilateral maxillary paramolar and distomolar till date. Hence, we are reporting these two cases with a brief review of literature to put emphasis on incidence, prevalence, proposed hypothesis for etiology, and management of supernumerary teeth.

1. Introduction

Supernumerary tooth (ST) is defined as a tooth or a structure resembling tooth which forms from dental lamina in addition to the normal dental formula [1, 2]. It can occur both in the maxillae and/or mandible, unilaterally or bilaterally, solitary or in multiples, and erupted or unerupted. It can be seen in both syndromic and nonsyndromic patients. Previous researches had documented the prevalence rate of ST to be 0.2%–0.8% and 0.5%–5.3% in deciduous and permanent dentition, respectively. The male-to-female ratio for the incidence of ST was reported to range in between 1.18 : 1 and 1.5 : 1. Supernumerary teeth are also associated with larger than average teeth which reflect their multifactorial etiology. Various hypothesis were postulated by different authors to explain the phenomena of ST development, but the exact etiology is still unknown [3]. However, Brook [4] had hypothesized an interaction of environmental and genetic factors.

ST can be classified on the basis of the morphology (conical, tuberculate, supplemental, and odontomes), location (mesiodens, paramolar, distomolar, and parapremolar), position (buccal, palatal, and transverse), and orientation (vertical or normal, inverted, transverse, or horizontal). Mesiodens is the most prevalent supernumerary teeth which is seen in premaxilla. ST in the molar region is comparatively very rare [3]. Also, a very few cases have been reported about the bilateral presence of ST in the molar region [5].

Hence, we are reporting two cases of bilateral ST in the molar region. Our first case is of bilateral maxillary paramolars, whereas the other case is a combination of unilateral maxillary paramolar and distomolar. In addition, we have reviewed the existing literature to focus on incidence, prevalence, proposed hypothesis for etiology, and management of supernumerary teeth.

2. Case Report 1

A 17-year-old male patient visited to the department of orthodontics and dentofacial orthopedics with a chief complaint of malalignment of teeth. His medical and family histories were not significant. On intraoral examination, buccally placed bilateral paramolars were present in between first and second maxillary molars (Figure 1). No clinical complications were present secondary to paramolars. Radiological investigations (intraoral periapical radiographs and panoramic radiograph) were advised to determine the root orientation (Figure 2). Both the paramolars were vertically oriented. Extractions were advised for both the paramolars to prevent any interruption in the orthodontic treatment. Extracted paramolars showed supplemental shape and form with well-defined transverse and marginal ridges resembling maxillary premolars (Figure 3). It was followed by initiation of the orthodontic treatment.

Figure 1: Intraoral images of Case 1 depicting bilateral maxillary paramolars (shown by arrows).
Figure 2: Panoramic and intraoral radiographs showing bilateral maxillary paramolars (encircled).
Figure 3: Extracted paramolars resembling maxillary premolars.

3. Case Report 2

A 23-year-old female patient visited to the department of orthodontics and dentofacial orthopedics with a chief complaint of forwardly placed upper front teeth. No significant medical and family histories were reported. On intraoral examination, fourteen teeth were present in maxillary arch (Figure 4). Clinically, maxillary third molars were missing bilaterally. She was advised for routine radiological investigations required for the orthodontic treatment. Panoramic radiograph revealed presence of a distomolar on the right side and a paramolar between left second and third molars (Figure 5). Computed tomographic scan was advised to know the accurate orientation of these impacted supernumerary teeth to formulate the treatment plan. It revealed the vertical orientation of both the impacted supernumerary teeth. Extraction of supernumerary teeth followed by the orthodontic treatment was advised to the patient.

Figure 4: Intraoral images of Case 2.
Figure 5: Panoramic radiograph showing maxillary the right distomolar and left paramolar (encircled).

4. Discussion

ST or hyperdontia as defined earlier are those teeth which are present in excess of the usual distribution of twenty deciduous and thirty-two permanent teeth [6]. Singh et al. had reported the prevalence of ST in Nepalese population to be 1.6%, which was in accordance with Hungarian (1.53%), Swedish (1.6%), and Brazilian (1.7%) population. The same study had showed the male predilection for ST with male: female ratio of 1.3 : 1 which was similar to Hungarian (1.4 : 1), British (1.4 : 1), and Brazilian (1.45 : 1) population [711]. Similarly, this study had also documented the prevalence of the single ST to be the most commonest (82.60%) followed by paired (15.21%) and triple ones (2.17%). Maxillary arch (98.8%) with the anterior medial region (mesiodens) and conical form was found to be the most common location and form of the supernumerary teeth in this study [7].

To the best of our knowledge, no studies from Nepal have reported the incidence of bilateral maxillary paramolars or the combination of unilateral maxillary paramolar and distomolar till date. The documented incidences similar to our cases reported in other population are briefed in Tables 1 and 2 [12, 13]. Hou et al. [14], Dhull et al. [15], Shetty [16], and Sulabha and Sameer [17] had reported the presence of bilateral maxillary paramolars similar to our first case report. Nirmala and Tirupathi [12] had documented the combination of unilateral maxillary paramolar and distomolar similar to our second case report.

Table 1: Reported cases of paramolars.
Table 2: Reported cases of combination of paramolar and distomolar/bilateral paramolars.

The exact etiology of occurrence of ST is not known. Numerous theories have been postulated to understand their existence along with the normal dentition. Atavism theory stated the occurrence of supernumerary teeth as the phylogenetic reversion to the extinct ancestral human dentition [33]. Dichotomy theory suggested that a developing tooth bud can divide into two teeth, giving rise to ST and a normal tooth [34]. Dental lamina hyperactivity theory, the most accepted one, suggests the localized and independent hyperactivity of the dental lamina to be the cause for the development of ST [7, 35]. Niswander and Sujaku [36] also proposed the presence of an autosomal recessive gene which explains the familial tendency to ST. It have been reported in patients with syndromes like cleft lip and palate, cleidocranial dysplasia, Ehlers–Danlos syndrome type III, Fabry–Anderson’s syndrome, Ellis–van Creveld syndrome, Gardner’s syndrome, Goldenhar syndrome, Hallermann–Streiff syndrome, orofaciodigital syndrome type I, incontinentia pigmenti, Marfan syndrome, Nance–Horan syndrome, and trichorhinophalangeal syndrome 1 [12].

ST may be associated with different clinical complications. These can result into clinical problems like midline diastema; crowding; malocclusion due to insufficient space; dilaceration, delayed, or failure of eruption of permanent teeth; root resorption of adjacent teeth; cyst formation; cheek bite; periodontal problems; dental caries, and other difficulties related to ectopic position. These complications occur rarely, but earlier diagnosis can help to prevent these complications [4, 13].

Radiographic screening plays a significant role in identification and localization of ST, especially when they are impacted or need surgical intervention. Two-dimensional imaging modalities (periapical radiographs, occlusal radiographs, and orthopantomographs) do provide sufficient information to the clinicians, but accurate position of buccally or lingually placed ST is difficult to determine due to the superimposition by the surrounding structures [4, 13, 37]. Clark and Richards had suggested horizontal and vertical tube shift technique, respectively, to determine exact location of ST using conventional radiography. Both of these are widely accepted due to their simplicity [4, 38, 39]. Recently, Toureno et al. proposed a guideline to use three-dimensional imaging modalities (cone beam computerized tomography) along with two-dimensional imaging modalities for better assessment of ST, planning surgical intervention with minimal treatment errors [40].

There are two different school of thoughts about the management of ST. Some authors recommended the removal of ST as soon as detected, whereas others emphasized the periodic monitoring and removal only in the case of any associated pathology or hindrance to any dental treatment especially the orthodontic treatment [4143]. Hogstrom and Andersson also suggested two different options for ST removal. According to them, ST either should be removed as early as it is identified or after completion of the adjacent tooth’s root formation. However, former option could result into creation of dental phobia in young children and can disturb the growth of adjacent teeth [44]. Recently, Omer et al. suggested the optimal time for the removal of ST during 6 to 7 years, based upon their retrospective analysis. According to them, during this age interval, ST removal can be done with minimal disturbances to the adjacent teeth [1].

5. Conclusion

Supernumerary teeth are uncommon and generally present without causing any complications like our cases. Our cases required surgical intervention for future orthodontic treatment and planning. Although complications are rare, clinicians should be aware of early identification, proper management, and associated complications with the same.

Conflicts of Interest

The authors declare that there are no conflicts of interest regarding the publication of this article.

References

  1. R. S. Omer, R. P. Anthonappa, and N. M. King, “Determination of the optimum time for surgical removal of unerupted anterior supernumerary teeth,” Pediatric Dentistry, vol. 32, no. 1, pp. 14–20, 2010. View at Google Scholar
  2. M. T. Cobourne and P. T. Sharpe, “Making up the numbers: the molecular control of mammalian dental formula,” Seminars in Cell & Developmental Biology, vol. 21, no. 3, pp. 314–324, 2010. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus
  3. X.-P. Wang and J. Fan, “Molecular genetics of supernumerary tooth formation,” Genesis, vol. 49, no. 4, pp. 261–277, 2010. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus
  4. A. H. Brook, “A unifying aetiological explanation for anomalies of human tooth number and size,” Archives of Oral Biology, vol. 29, no. 5, pp. 373–378, 1984. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus
  5. S. K. Mallineni, “Supernumerary teeth: review of the literature with recent updates,” Conference Papers in Science, vol. 2014, Article ID 764050, 6 pages, 2014. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar
  6. C. Schulze, “Developmental abnormalities of the teeth and jaws,” in Toma’s Oral Pathology, R. J. Gorlin and H. M. Goldman, Eds., pp. 112–122, C.V. Mosby, St. Louis, MI, USA, 1970. View at Google Scholar
  7. V. P. Singh, A. Sharma, and S. Sharma, “Supernumerary teeth in Nepalese children,” Scientific World Journal, vol. 2014, Article ID 215396, 5 pages, 2014. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus
  8. K. Gabris, G. Fabian, M. Kaan, N. Rozsa, and I. Tarjan, “Prevalence of hypodontia and hyperdontia in paedodontic and orthodontic patients in Budapest,” Community Dental Health, vol. 23, no. 2, pp. 80–82, 2006. View at Google Scholar
  9. I. Bodin, P. Julin, and M. Tomsson, “Hyperdontia. I. Frequency and distribution of supernumerary teeth among 21,609 patients,” Dentomaxillofacial Radiology, vol. 7, no. 1, pp. 15–17, 1978. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar
  10. F. X. P. C. Simoes, I. Crusoe-Rebello, F. S. Neves, C. Oliveira Santos, A. L. Ciamponi, and O. G. da Silva Filho, “Prevalence of supernumerary teeth in orthodontic patients from South Western Brazil,” International Journal of Odontostomatology, vol. 5, no. 2, pp. 199–202, 2011. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar
  11. A. H. Brook, “Dental anomalies of number, form and size: their prevalence in British school children,” Journal of the International Association of Dentistry for Children, vol. 5, no. 2, pp. 37–53, 1974. View at Google Scholar
  12. S. V. S. G. Nirmala and S. P. Tirupathi, “Rare combination of developing unerupted paramolar and distomolar in maxilla: a case report and review of literature,” Journal of Interdisciplinary Medicine and Dental Science, vol. 4, no. 4, pp. 1–6, 2016. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar
  13. N. B. Nagaveni, K. V. Umashankara, N. B. Radhika, B. Praveen Reddy, and S. Manjunath, “Maxillary paramolar: report of a case and literature review,” Archives of Orofacial Sciences, vol. 5, no. 1, pp. 24–28, 2010. View at Google Scholar
  14. G. L. Hou, C. C. Lin, and C. C. Tsai, “Ectopic supernumerary teeth as a predisposing cause in localized periodontitis. Case report,” Australian Dental Journal, vol. 40, no. 4, pp. 226–228, 1995. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus
  15. K. S. Dhull, S. Acharya, P. Ray, S. Yadav, and S. D. Prabhakaran, “Bilateral maxillary paramolars: a case report,” Journal of Dentistry for Children, vol. 79, no. 2, pp. 84–87, 2012. View at Google Scholar
  16. Y. N. Shetty, “A rare case of bilateral maxillary paramolars between 1st and 2nd molars,” Journal of Orofacial Research, vol. 2, no. 1, pp. 52–55, 2012. View at Google Scholar
  17. A. N. Sulabha and C. Sameer, “Unusual bilateral paramolars associated with clinical complications,” Case Reports in Dentistry, vol. 2015, Article ID 851765, 4 pages, 2015. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus
  18. K. Puri, M. Bansal, D. Jain et al., “Nonsyndromic multiple supernumerary premolars and paramolars: an overview and report of 2 cases,” Indian Journal of Dental Sciences, vol. 5, pp. 54–56, 2013. View at Google Scholar
  19. G. Nayak, S. Shetty, I. Singh, and D. Pitalia, “Paramolar - A supernumerary molar: a case report and an overview,” Dental Research Journal, vol. 9, pp. 797–803, 2012. View at Google Scholar
  20. P. Ghogre and S. Gurav, “Non-invasive endodontic management of fused mandibular second molar and a paramolar, using cone beam computed tomography as an adjunctive diagnostic aid: a case report,” Journal of Conservative Dentistry, vol. 17, pp. 483–486, 2014. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus
  21. S. Venugopal, B. V. Smitha, and S. P. Saurabh, “Paramolar concrescence and periodontitis,” Journal of Indian Society of Periodontology, vol. 17, pp. 383–386, 2013. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus
  22. E. Nunes, I. G. de Moraes, P. M. de Novaes, and S. M. de Sousa, “Bilateral fusion of mandibular second molars with supernumerary teeth: case report,” Brazilian Dental Journal, vol. 13, pp. 137–141, 2002. View at Google Scholar
  23. K. Rudagi, B. M. Rudagi, S. Metgud, and R. Wagle, “Endodontic management of mandibular second molar fused to a supernumerary tooth, using spiral computed tomography as a diagnostic aid: a case report,” Case Reports in Dentistry, vol. 2012, p. 614129, 2012. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar
  24. A. S. Milani, “Endodontic management of a fused mandibular second molar and paramolar: a case report,” Iranian Endodontic Journal, vol. 5, pp. 131–134, 2010. View at Google Scholar
  25. F. M. Rosa, A. Stankiewicz, and I. M. Faraco, “Impaction of mandibular molar by supernumerary tooth: case report,” Journal of Dentistry for Children, vol. 75, pp. 181–184, 2008. View at Google Scholar
  26. S. Ballal, G. S. Sachdeva, and D. Kandaswamy, “Endodontic management of a fused mandibular second molar and paramolar with the aid of spiral computed tomography: a case report,” Journal of Endodontics, vol. 33, pp. 1247–1251, 2007. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus
  27. J. Ghoddusi, M. Zarei, and H. Jafarzadeh, “Endodontic treatment of a supernumerary tooth fused to a mandibular second molar: a case report,” Journal of Oral Science, vol. 48, pp. 39–41, 2002. View at Google Scholar
  28. A. N. Dubuk, K. A. Selvig, G. Tellefsen, and U. M. Wikesjo, “Atypically located paramolar. Report of a rare case,” European Journal of Oral Sciences, vol. 104, pp. 138–140, 1996. View at Google Scholar
  29. S. Kumasaka, K. Hideshima, H. Shinji et al., “A case of two impacted paramolar in lower right molar dentition,” Kanagawa Shigaku, vol. 23, pp. 417–423, 1988. View at Google Scholar
  30. P. Omal, V. Jacob, J. Lonapan, and A. Kurian, “Bilateral fourth molars with paramolars in maxilla,” Kerala Dental Journal, vol. 34, pp. 277–279, 2011. View at Google Scholar
  31. A. Mayfeld and P. S. Casamassimo, “Bilateral paramolars and fourth molars,” Oral Surgery, Oral Medicine, Oral Pathology, Oral Radiology, vol. 69, p. 394, 1990. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar
  32. G. S. Reddy, G. V. Reddy, I. V. Krishna, and S. K. Regonda, “Nonsyndromic bilateral multiple impacted supernumerary mandibular third molars: a rare and unusual case report,” Case Reports in Dentistry, vol. 2013, p. 857147, 2013. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar
  33. R. P. Anthonappa, N. M. King, and A. B. Rabie, “Aetiology of supernumerary teeth: a literature review,” European Archives of Paediatrc Dentistry, vol. 14, pp. 279–288, 2013. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus
  34. W. Bateson, “On numerical variation in teeth, with a discussion of conception of homology,” Proceedings of Zoological Society of London, vol. 102, no. 4, p. 115, 1982. View at Google Scholar
  35. G. V. Black, “Supernumerary teeth,” Dental Summary, vol. 29, pp. 83–110, 1909. View at Google Scholar
  36. J. D. Niswander and C. Sujaku, “Congenital anomalies of teeth in Japanese children,” American Journal of Physical Anthropology, vol. 21, no. 4, pp. 569–574, 1963. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus
  37. M. Dojs and A. Roicka, “The usefulness of pantomographic x-ray pictures in estimating the position of the paramolar and distomolar teeth,” Annales Academiae Medicae Stetinensis, vol. 53, no. 1, pp. 83–85, 2007. View at Google Scholar
  38. C. A. Clark, “A method of ascertaining the relative position of unerupted teeth by means of film radiographs,” Proceedings of Royal Society of Medicine, vol. 3, pp. 87–90, 1910. View at Google Scholar
  39. A. G. Richards, “Roentgenographic localization of the mandibular canal,” Journal of Oral Surgery, vol. 10, pp. 325–329, 1952. View at Google Scholar
  40. L. Toureno, J. H. Park, R. A. Cederberg, E. H. Hwang, and J. W. Shin, “Identification of supernumerary teeth in 2D and 3D: review of literature and a proposal,” Journal of Dental Education, vol. 77, no. 1, pp. 43–50, 2013. View at Google Scholar
  41. S. Rotberg and H. M. Kopel, “Early vs late removal of mesiodens: a clinical study of 375 children,” Compendium of Continuing Education in Dentistry, vol. 5, pp. 115–119, 1984. View at Google Scholar
  42. D. Munns, “A case of partial anodontia and supernumerary tooth present in the same jaw,” Dental Practitioner and Dental Record, vol. 18, no. 1, pp. 34–37, 1967. View at Google Scholar
  43. P. J. Scanlan and S. J. Hodges, “Supernumerary premolar teeth in siblings,” British Journal of Orthodontics, vol. 24, no. 4, pp. 297–300, 1997. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus
  44. A. Hogstrom and L. Andersson, “Complications related to surgical removal of anterior supernumerary teeth in children,” Journal of Dentistry for Children, vol. 54, no. 5, pp. 341–343, 1987. View at Google Scholar