# The Presence of Impacted Teeth (Except for Wisdom Teeth) in Orthodontic Patients in Israel
## 3 Results  
Between the years 2010-2017, 1654 patients were treated in the Department of Orthodontics at Tel-Aviv University, of whom 197 were patients with impacted teeth, with periodic prevalence for impacted teeth being 11.9% (95% confidence interval: 10.35-13.47%). Age and sex distribution in the research group (impacted teeth) and the control group are presented in Table 1.  
Table 2 presents the epidemiological data. There was a tendency for statistical significance in the research group compared to the control group both in the average birth week (38.7 vs. 39.4 weeks respectively, \(p\) = 0.068) and the type of birth (natural/cesarean section: 24.4% vs. 9.1%, respectively, \(p\) = 0.087). There was no statistical difference regarding complications during childbirth. \begin{table}
\begin{tabular}{c c c c c} \hline \hline  & \multicolumn{2}{c}{**Research Group**} & \multicolumn{2}{c}{**Control Group**} & \multicolumn{1}{c}{\(p\)**-Value**} \\ \hline \multicolumn{2}{c}{Birth week (Mean \(\pm\) Std.)} & \multicolumn{2}{c}{38.69 \(\pm\) 2.009} & \multicolumn{2}{c}{39.36 \(\pm\) 1.35} & 0.068 \\ \hline \multirow{2}{*}{Labor} & Natural & 34 (75.6\%) & 40 (88.88\%) & 0.087 \\ \cline{2-5}  & Cesarean & 11 (24.4\%) & 5 (11.11\%) & \\ \hline \multirow{2}{*}{\begin{tabular}{c} Complication \\ during labor \\ \end{tabular} } & Yes & 5 (11.1\%) & 2 (4.4\%) & 0.434 \\ \cline{2-5}  & No & 40 (88.9\%) & 43 (95.6\%) & \\ \hline \multirow{2}{*}{Systemic disease} & Yes & 8 (17.8\%) & 0 (0.0\%) & 0.006 \\ \cline{2-5}  & No & 37 (82.2\%) & 45 (100.0\%) & \\ \hline \multirow{2}{*}{\begin{tabular}{c} Other teeth \\ anomalies \\ \end{tabular} } & Yes & 15 (33.3\%) & 3 (6.7\%) & 0.003 \\ \cline{2-5}  & No & 30 (66.7\%) & 42 (93.3\%) & \\ \hline \multirow{2}{*}{\begin{tabular}{c} Relatives’ teeth \\ anomalies \\ \end{tabular} } & Yes & 11 (24.4\%) & 2 (4.4\%) & 0.014 \\ \cline{2-5}  & No & 34 (75.6\%) & 43 (95.6\%) & \\ \hline \multirow{2}{*}{\
\begin{tabular}{c} No. of wisdom \\ teeth/germ \\ \end{tabular} } & None & 15 (33.3\%) & 10 (2.2\%) & 0.347 \\ \cline{2-5}  & 1/2/3/4 & 30 (66.7\%) & 35 (77.8\%) & \\ \hline \multirow{2}{*}{Chief complaint} & None & 1 (2.2\%) & 1 (2.2\%) & \\ \cline{2-5}  & Esthetics & 25 (55.6\%) & 43 (95.6\%) & 0.000 \\ \cline{2-5}  & Missing teeth & 19 (42.2\%) & 1 (2.2\%) & \\ \hline \multirow{2}{*}{
\begin{tabular}{c} Who referred for \\ treatment \\ \end{tabular} } & Self & 7 (15.6\%) & 18 (40.0\%) & \\ \cline{2-5}  & Pedodontics & 4 (8.9\%) & 2 (4.4\%) & 0.027 \\ \cline{2-5}  & General dentist & 31 (68.9\%) & 25 (55.6\%) & \\ \cline{2-5}  & Other & 3 (6.7\%) & 0 (0.0\%) & \\ \hline \multicolumn{2}{c}{Duration of treatment in years (Mean \(\pm\) Std.)} & 4.24 \(\pm\) 1.87 & 2.43 \(\pm\) 0.87 & 0.000 \\ \hline \hline \end{tabular}
\end{table} 
Table 2: Comparative variables between the research group and the control group. Significant results (\(p\) = 0.006) were obtained regarding the medical condition of the patients: eight patients in the study group (17.8%) suffered from a systemic disease (7 suffered from respiratory disease and one patient with thrombophilia) compared to 0 patients in the control group. Regarding the genetics and dental condition of the patients and their families, the existence of other dental anomalies (peg shaped lateral/excess tooth/missing tooth) was statistically significant among the study group and among their family members compared to the control (\(p\) = 0.003, and \(p\) = 0.014, respectively). No significant difference was found comparing the number of existing wisdom teeth. Comparing the reason for seeking orthodontic treatment, in the study group the most common referring doctor was a general practitioner (31 patients, 68.9%), compared to a general practitioner (25 patients, 55.6%) and self-referral (18 patients, 40%) in the control group, with statistical significance (\(p\) = 0.027). The chief complaint was also significant (\(p\) < 0.0001) with aesthetic complaint in the control group at 95.6% compared to 55.6% in the study group.