Skip to main content

Table 2 Characteristics of dental occlusion in the infant oral mutilation (IOM) group compared to the control group

From: Prevalence and impact of infant oral mutilation on dental occlusion and oral health-related quality of life among Kenyan adolescents from Maasai Mara

 

IOM group (n = 173)a

Control group (n = 95)

p

 

Number (%)

Number (%)

 

Mandibular overjet (HO ≤ 0 mm)

1 (0.6)

0

<  0.001

Neutral overjet (0 < HO ≤ 5 mm)

83 (49.1)

76 (80.0)

Maxillary overjet (5 < HO < 9 mm)

52 (30.8)

17(17.9)

Extreme maxillary overjet (HO ≥ 9 mm)

34 (20.1)

2 (2.1)

Neutral overbite (0 ≤ VO ≤ 4)

139 (83.7)

85 (89.5)

0.226

Deep bite (VO ≥ 5 mm)

17 (10.2)

4 (4.2)

Frontal open bite (VO < 0)

10 (6.0)

6 (6.3)

Molar occlusion

 Mesial (one or both sides)

19 (11.0)

0

< 0.001

 Distal (one or both sides)

4 (2.3)

4 (4.2)

0.382

 Cross bite (one or both sides)

14 (8.1)

12 (12.6)

0.230

 Scissor bite (one or both sides)

5 (2.9)

3 (3.2)

0.902

 

Mean (SD) [95% CI]

Mean (SD) [95% CI]

p

Horizontal overjet (mm)

5.9 (2.8) [5.5–6.4]

4.1 (SD 1.9) [3.7–4.5]

< 0.001

Vertical overbite (mm)

2.3 (2.4) [1.1–2.6]

2.0 (SD 1.8) [1.6–2.3]

0.298

  1. Comparison by Chi2-test (HO categories, VO categories, and molar occlusion categories) or t-test (mean HO and mean VO)
  2. Figures in parentheses are percentages of patients with the deviation in the group
  3. Figures in brackets [] are 95% confidence interval (CI)
  4. aMissing data on HO of four patients and on VO of seven patients
  5. IOM group: Teenagers missing two to four mandibular incisors and/or canines
  6. Control group: Teenagers with all mandibular incisors and canines present