Global Map of Skeletal and Dental Malocclusion Prevalence: From Classes to Continents

Review Article

J Dent & Oral Disord. 2024; 10(1): 1183.

Global Map of Skeletal and Dental Malocclusion Prevalence: From Classes to Continents

Iqbal M Lone¹; Kareem Midlej¹; Osayd Zohud¹; Eva Paddenberg²; Sebastian Krohn²; Christian Kirschneck³; Peter Proff²; Nezar Watted4-6; Fuad A Iraqi1,2,6*

1Department of Clinical Microbiology and Immunology, Sackler Faculty of Medicine, Tel Aviv University, Tel Aviv 6997801, Israel

2University Hospital of Regensburg, Department of Orthodontics, University of Regensburg, Germany

3Department of Orthodontics, University of Bonn, D-53111 Bonn, Germany

4Center for Dentistry Research and Aesthetics, 45911 Jatt, Israel

5Department of Orthodontics, Faculty of Dentistry, Arab America University, 919000 Jenin, PNA.

6Gathering for Prosperity initiative, Israel.

*Corresponding author: Fuad A Iraqi Department of Clinical Microbiology and Immunology, Sackler Faculty of Medicine, Tel Aviv University, Tel Aviv 6997801, Israel. Email: fuadi@tauex.tau.ac.il

Received: January 23, 2024 Accepted: March 08, 2024 Published: March 15, 2024

Abstract

Malocclusion, ranked by the WHO as the third most critical oral health concern, impacts 39% to 93% of adolescents and teenagers worldwide, exhibiting variations influenced by age and ethnicity. Across sagittal, transverse, and vertical orientations, malocclusion poses physiological and social challenges, with 46% experiencing negative lifestyle impacts. To assess global prevalence and characteristics, Authors reviewed articles on skeletal abnormalities and malocclusions from the early 1990s to September 2023. Criteria included English-language research studies or meta-analyses focusing on Class I, Class II, and Class III malocclusions, malocclusion incidence, and dental anomalies such as open bite, deep bite, overjet, crowding, spacing, and crossbite. Prevalence globally varied for Class I (1.7-93.6%), Class II (7.4-84.0%), Class III (0.8-72.1%), and Angle Class I (0.5- 31 39.1%). Deep bite incidence ranged from 8.4% to 51.5%, influenced by ethnic and gender cofounders. Geographic variations were attributed to genetic and environmental factors, alongside methodological disparities, and categorization issues. Ambiguities in malocclusion prevalence arose from diverse research methodologies. Orthodontic epidemiology urgently requires standardized guidelines accepted by academia and professional groups to provide reliable data for healthcare recommendations. Geographic variations, influenced by genetic and environmental factors, contribute to the diverse prevalence of malocclusion globally. Methodological disparities and categorization issues create challenges, necessitating urgent development of standardized guidelines for orthodontic epidemiology. These guidelines, embraced by academia and professional groups, are crucial for providing accurate data to inform healthcare recommendations.

Keywords: Skeletal Occlusion; Malocclusion; Prevalence; Angle class; Continent; Epidemiology

Introduction

Malocclusion ranks third in importance to periodontal disease and caries in the WHO's list of oral health issues [1]. According to the estimates [2], it affects children and teenagers at a rate that ranges from 39% to 93% of the worldwide population. There are many variations within this prevalence range between the different populations [2]. This heterogeneity may be caused by the varying ages and ethnicities of the patients in the studies determining the prevalence of malocclusion [3]. The three spatial planes of sagittal, transverse, and vertical are all capable of hosting malocclusions. By analysing the A point-Nasion-B point (ANB) angle, which stands for the anteroposterior intermaxillary relationship, three distinct types of skeletal relationships in the sagittal plane can be iden tified. When the ANB angle ranges from 0° to 4°, the skeletal I is present (Figures 1A and 55 2). Due to the jaw bases' harmonious growth in this instance, the relationship between the 56 upper and lower jaws is correct. There is a change in the relationship between the maxilla and mandible bases with the upper jaw prognathic in relation to the mandible, a retrognathic position of the mandible retracted mandibular angle, or a combination of both conditions when the ANB angle is more than 4° in cases of skeletal class II (Figures 1B and 60 3). [4]. The ANB angle must be less than 0° to fall under skeletal class III (Figures 1C and 61 4). When the mandible projects beyond the upper jaw, the upper jaw retrudes, or both situations coexist [5], there is a change in the relationship between the two maxilla and mandible bases. In the same plane, borders evaluating the overjet or the amount of horizontal overlap between the incisal border is possible. The values range from 2 +/- 2 mm away from the occlusal level, and in the event of a retrognathic overjet, the subject will exhibit a reversed occlusion [6].