Determination of Grading for Maxillary and Mandibular Tori- an in Vivo Study
Parithimar kalaignan1![](https://www.biomedpharmajournal.org/wp-content/uploads/2017/11/orcid_16x16.png)
![](https://www.biomedpharmajournal.org/wp-content/uploads/2017/11/orcid_16x16.png)
![](https://www.biomedpharmajournal.org/wp-content/uploads/2017/11/orcid_16x16.png)
1Department of Prosthodontics, Vinayaka missions Sankarachariyar dental college, Salem.
2Department of Prosthodontics, Karpaga Vinayaga institute of dental Sciences Kancheepuram.
Corresponding Author E-mail: parithisiva@gmail.com
Abstract: To establish a definitive grading system & derive classification of maxillary &mandibular tori based on shape . A cluster sample of 72 patients who sought treatment at the dental college with maxillary and/or Mandibular tori were selected, alginate impression were made for each patient and the stone casts poured were evaluated based on the following criteria; shape, prominence and dimensions (length, width, height) to surface a new grading system for the tori. From a total sample size of 72 patients with tori, 38 (52.8%) patients were dentulous (either fully or partially dentulous), and remaining 34 (47.2%) patients were edentulous. A total of 5 patients only had both maxillary and mandibular tori simultaneously present at the time of inspection, while all other 67 patients had only maxillary tori. From the 72 patients who presented with torus palatinus, in relation to the tori shape, 10 (13.9%) were flat, 43 (59.7%) were lobular, 16(22.2%) were spindle shaped and only 3 (4.2%) were of nodular shape. From the 5 patients who presented with torus mandibularis, 3 presented with tori of mild prominence, and 2 others presented with a moderately prominent mandibular tori.In relation to torus palatinus dimension, the width of tori varied widely from 4.0mm to 25.0mm, while the length too had a wide variation from 10.0mm to 37.0mm. The height however hadn’t as much variation, ranging from 0.5mm to 5.0mm. A successful grading system was accomplished in relation to maxillary tori and its effect on the prognosis of maxillary denture stability and retention could be determined from this grading system; however this was not successful for mandibular tori due to insufficient sample size of patients in this category. The grading system devised in our study was reasonable for use by dental graduates, though the study had short comings in few aspects that were not looked upon on initiation, it would be a stepping stone towards more research in this field in relation to maxillary and mandibular tori.. From this study, it is anticipated that Prosthodontist can have a precise idea of the tori to prosthesis relationship when faced with such patients in their day to day practice.
Keywords: Grades Tori Mandibular Tori; Palatinus Torus; Back to TOC