SUTURA FRONTALIS PERSISTENS (SUTURA METOPICA) PERSISTENT FRONTAL SUTURE (METOPIC SUTURE)

İnsanlarda bazı kemikler embriyonal dönemde birkaçparçadan oluşur. İleri dönemde bu parçalar birleşerektek bir kemik haline dönüşür. Kafatası kemiklerinde buparçalar genellikle birleşirken bazen birleşmeyebilir vebuna bağlı olarak aralarında kalıcı bir sutura ortayaçıkabilir. Os frontale’de bu suturaya, sutura frontalispersistens (sutura metopica) denir. AraştırmamızdaErciyes Üniversitesi Tıp Fakültesi AnatomiLaboratuvarı'nda bulunan 57 kafatası üzerinde bulunansutura metopica’lar incelendi. İncelediğimiz 57 kafatasının beş tanesinde (%8,77) sutura metopica tespit edildi,15 tanesinde (%26,32) sutura metopica’nın burun kısmının ikincil füzyonu olan ve genellikle tek başına görülen sutura supranasale’nin bulunduğu tespit edildi. Bulgularımız diğer araştırmalardaki sonuçlar ile benzerlikgöstermektedir. Bulgularımızın bundan sonraki çalışmalarda ve kafataslarına yapılacak cerrahi müdahalelerde yol gösterici olacağı kanaatindeyiz.

Some bones in humans consist of several parts during the embryonal period. In the later period these parts merge and turn into a single bone. In the skull bones, these parts are usually combine, sometimes not joining and consequently a permanent suture may occur between them. This suture is called persistent frontal suture (metopic suture) in frontal bone. In our study, the metopic sutures were found on 57 skulls in the Anatomy Laboratory of Erciyes University Faculty of Medicine. Of the 57 skulls we examined, 5 (8.77%) were detected to have metopic sutures while 15 (26.32%) were found to have supranasal suture, the fusion of the nasal portion of a persistent metopic suture generally appearing a single. Our findings are similar to the results obtained in other research findings. We believe that our findings will be a guide for future studies and surgical interventions with skulls.

PDF

___

1. Gross LC, Griffen AL, Casamassimo PS. Compomers as class II restorations in primary molars. Pediatr Dent 2001; 23:24-27.
2. Burgess JO, Walker R, Davidson JM. Posterior resin-based composite: review of the literature. Pediatr Dent 2002; 24:465-479.
3. Bagheri R, Burrow MF, Tyas MJ. Surface characteristics of aesthetic restorative materials - a SEM study. J Oral Rehabil 2007; 34:68-76.
4. Yap AU, Yap WY, Yeo EJ, Tan JW, Ong DS. Effects of finishing/polishing techniques on microleakage of resin-modified glass ilonomer cement restorations. Oper Dent 2003; 28:36-41.
5. Yap AU, Lye KW, Sau CW. Surface characteristics of tooth-colored restoratives polished utilizing different polishing systems. Oper Dent 1997; 22:260-265.
6. Silva MF, Davies RM, Stewart B, et al. Effect of whitening gels on the surface roughness of restorative materials in situ. Dent Mater J 2006; 22:919-924.
7. Mondelli RF, Wang L, Garcia FC, et al. Evaluation of weight loss and surface roughness of compomers after simulated toothbrushing abrasion test. J Appl Oral Sci 2005; 13:131-135.
8. Turkun LS, Turkun M. The effect of one-step polishing system on the surface roughness of three esthetic resin composite materials. Oper Dent 2004; 29:203-211.
9. Borges AB, Marsilio AL, Pagani C, Rodrigues JR. Surface roughness of packable composite resins polished with various systems. J Esthet Restor Dent 2004; 16:42-47.
10. Neme AL, Frazier KB, Roeder LB, Debner TL. Effect of prophylactic polishing protocols on the surface roughness of esthetic restorative materials. Oper Dent 2002; 27:50-58.
11. Weitman RT, Eames WB. Plaque accumulation on composite surfaces after various finising procedures. J Am Dent Assoc 1975; 91:101-106.
12. Bollen CM, Lambrechts P, Quirynen M. Comparison of surface roughness of oral hard materials to the threshold surface roughness for bacterial plaque retention: A review of the literature. Dent Mater J 1997; 13:258-269.
13. Mei L, Busscher HJ, van der Mei HC, Ren Y. Influence of surface roughness on streptococcal adhesion forces to composite resins. Dent Mater J 2011; 27:770-778.
14. Biçer CÖ, Öz FD, Attar N, Korkmaz Y. Farklı polisaj sistemlerinin estetik kompozit rezinlerin yüzey pürüzlülüğü üzerine etkileri. Acta Odontol Turc 2017; 34:77-80
15. Yildiz E, Sirin Karaarslan E, Simsek M, Ozsevik AS, Usumez A. Color stability and surface roughness of polished anterior restorative materials. Dent Mater J 2015; 34:629-639.
16. Joniot S, Salomon JP, Dejou J, Gregoire G. Use of two surface analyzers to evaluate the surface roughness of four esthetic restorative materials after polishing. Oper Dent 2006; 31:39-46.
17. Bashetty K, Joshi S. The effect of one-step and multi -step polishing systems on surface texture of two different resin composites. J Conserv Dent 2010; 13:34-38.
18. Bouvier D, Duprez JP, Lissac M. Comparative evaluation of polishing systems on the surface of three aesthetic materials. J Oral Rehabil 1997; 24:888-894.
19. Uctasli MB, Arisu HD, Omurlu H, ve ark. The effect of different finishing and polishing systems on the surface roughness of different composite restorative materials. J Contemp Dent Pract 2007; 8:89-96.
20. Yap AU, Mok BY. Surface finish of a new hybrid aesthetic restorative material. Oper Dent 2002; 27:161-166.
21. Üçtaşlı MB, Eligüzeloğlu E, Arısu HD, ve ark. İki farklı bitirme ve parlatma sisteminin farklı viskozitedeki akışkan ve mikrodolduruculu kompozit restoratif materyallerin yüzey pürüzlülüğü üzerine etkisi. Turkiye Klinikleri J Dental Sci 2008; 14:75- 79.
22. Mine Bozkurt DA, Levent Özer. Farklı bitirme/ polisaj sistemlerinin poliasit-modifiye kompozit rezinin (kopmomer) yüzey pürüzlülüğü üzerine etkisi. GÜ Diş Hek Fak Derg 2012; 29:157-164.
23. Yap AU, Mok BY. Surface finish of a new hybrid aesthetic restorative material. Oper Dent 2002; 27:161-6.