br Dental maturity evaluation br To
Dental maturity evaluation
To evaluate the DM, the Demirjian method 14 was used, where the final values established by the author of this Okadaic acid method were converted into dental age (DAG). In order to compare the DAG with the chronological age (CAG), a mathematical formula of reason was created that consisted of the DAG converted into months divided by the CAG in months (DAG in months/CAG in months).
In order to minimize potential bias, the PR of SG and CG were randomized to not distinguish the groups. In addition, the examiners had access
to all clinical information of both groups only after the radiographic assessment was completed.
A total of 222 PR were evaluated, 111 in the SG and 111 in the CG. Following all the inclusion criteria mentioned before, a total of 14 PR of the SG were excluded for the data analysis due to the following reasons: 10 PR of CCS belonged to individuals who did not have history of CHT and/or RT as part of their AT, 3 PR were of individuals who underwent CHT for haemangioma, and 1 PR was of a patient with Job syndrome. In the CG, the number of PR remained as 111. In this way, a total of 197 PR were used for the analysis and data interpretation, 97 PR of the SG and 111 PR of the CG. However, in order to increase the accuracy in the methodology, some PR with history of orthodontic treatment were excluded for evaluating some DA. Additionally, PR with hypodontia or the absence of one or more teeth in the left lower permanent dentition (except the third molar) were excluded to asses DM. All the details are described in Supplementary table 1.
Statistica 12 was the statistical software used to perform the data analysis. To choose the statistical test, the Sharipo-Wilk normality test was used. The Mann-Whitney U test was used to compare the prevalence of DA between the SG and the CG. To compare the number of DA relative to the type of treatment, the Kruskal-Wallis test was used. To associate the most prevalent DA of the SG regarding the age of diagnosis and the duration of treatment, a t-test and the Mann-Whitney U test were performed, as well as to compare the DAG and the DAG and CAG between the SG and the CG. Finally, some data were analysed
using descriptive statistics. All the tests were with a significance level of P < 0.05.
Among the 97 PR of CCS analysed, 56 (57.73%) PR were of females, and 41 (42.27%) were of males. The majority of CCS 92 (94,85%) were submitted to chemotherapy, in this type of treatment, the main chemotherapeutic agents used were vincristine (62.89%), doxorubicin (51.55%), methotrexate (57.67%) and cyclophosphamide (57.73%). A total of 30 (30,93%) CCS were submitted to radiotherapy as part of their AT, among them, 23 individuals were irradiated in the head and neck area, 5 individuals underwent total body irradiation, and 2 individuals were irradiated in other areas such as the mediastinum and abdomen. The last two PR of these individuals were excluded from the analysis of the association of DA with the type of treatment. They received a minimum dose of 120 Gy and a maximum dose of 540 Gy (mean 330.4 Gy). From them, 4 subjects had no radiation dose information. Other characteristics such as distribution of type of treatment and type of neoplasms of the CCS were described in Table II.
There were identified more DA in PR of CCS in comparison with CG (p < 0.05). In this way, DA within the hypoplastic classification (microdontia and hypodontia) and the DRA were the most prevalent DA in the SG compared to the CG (p < 0.05) (Table III) and (Figures 2,3,4,5). All details about characteristics of the CCS with these prevalent DA are described in Supplementary Table II. The analysis about the quantity of DA per individual revealed that the presence of 10 or more DA were present only in PR of CCS,
this quantity was totally contrary to the CG where the majority had only one or no DA (Table IV). The distribution of the DA for the teeth affected are described in Table V.