Pulp stones are calcifications within the dental pulp, often discovered incidentally during routine radiographs. Their size and shape vary, which can complicate dental procedures. Understanding the prevalence and distribution of pulp stones across different demographic groups is critical for enhancing dental care strategies. Objective: This study aimed to determine the prevalence of pulp stones and assess their distribution across various age and gender groups in patients attending the Dental Hospital at Lahore Medical and Dental College (LMDC), Lahore. Methods: A cross-sectional study was conducted over 12 months, from October 2020 to October 2021, at the LMDC Dental Hospital. Data from 600 patients were reviewed, and a sample of 400 patients meeting the inclusion criteria was selected. Two experienced examiners independently evaluated radiographs for the presence of pulp stones. Statistical analysis was conducted using SPSS version 26. Descriptive statistics were employed to summarize the data, and chi-square tests were used to evaluate associations between pulp stone presence and demographic variables. Statistical significance was set at p-value < 0.005. Results: The prevalence of pulp stones was 93.3% among the 400 patients, with an average age of 37.74 years. The highest prevalence was observed in the 31-50 age group (42.25%). Males exhibited a slightly higher prevalence (54.5%) than females (38.75%). Significant associations (p < 0.005) were found between age and the presence of pulp stones in several tooth types. However, gender differences were statistically insignificant, except for the left mandibular second molar. Conclusion: This study demonstrates a high prevalence of pulp stones, with significant associations between age and their occurrence in various tooth types. Gender differences were minimal, except in specific cases. These findings highlight the need to consider demographic factors in dental care and suggest further research to explore the broader health implications of pulp stones.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
SYED et al. (2024) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: