EVALUATION OF MAXILLARY AND MANDIBULAR RIGHT AND LEFT SIDE TOOTH SIZE DISCREPANCIES IN AVERAGE AND HIGH BOLTON GROUPS

Yıl 2023, , 96 - 101, 28.02.2023

Feyza Hacıağaoğlu Akkız , Evren Öztaş

https://doi.org/10.26650/JARHS2023-1122152

Öz

Objective: Evaluating the effects of maxillary and mandibular right and left side tooth size discrepancies on achieving dental midline symmetry and favorable orthodontic occlusion. Materials and Method: 90 pretreatment dental casts, selected randomly and in permanent dentition, were grouped according to the Bolton analysis as Average Bolton Group (ABG; n:67) and High Bolton Group (HBG; n:23). To designate the left and right dentition size asymmetries and calculate the mesiodistal width of the mandibular and maxillary teeth, a digital caliper was used on orthodontic casts. The hypothesis was tested using a statistical hypothesis test. To statistically compare ABG and HBG groups, the independent samples “t” test was used. The results were evaluated at a significance level of p<0.05. Results: The difference between the total width of the upper right and left dentition was 0.65±0.55 mm (p<0.05) and the difference between the width of the lower right and left dentition was 0.55±0.49 mm (p<0.05) in the ABG, while in HBG the difference between the sum of the upper right and left dentition was 0.55±0.39 mm (p<0.05) and the difference between the sum of the lower right and left dentition was 0.53±0.43 mm (p<0.05). There were no statistically significant differences between the ABG and HBG (p>0.05) according to the independent samples “t” test. Conclusions: The results indicated that there are minimal but statistically significant differences between the right and left mesiodistal tooth width totals both in ABG and HBG that should be considered to attain favorable orthodontic treatment results and dental midline symmetry.

Anahtar Kelimeler

Bolton Analysis, Average Bolton, High Bolton, Dental Asymmetry, Tooth Size Discrepancy

NORMAL VE YÜKSEK BOLTON GRUPLARINDA MAKSİLLER VE MANDİBULAR SAĞ VE SOL DİŞ BOYUT FARKLARININ DEĞERLENDİRİLMESİ

Öz

Amaç: Maksiller ve mandibular sağ ve sol diş boyutlarındaki uyumsuzlukların dental ve orta hat simetrisini sağlama ve uygun ortodontik oklüzyon elde etme üzerindeki etkisini değerlendirmektir. Gereç ve Yöntem: Ortodontik tedavi öncesi daimi dentisyondaki 90 alçı model rastgele seçilmiş ve Bolton analizine göre Normal Bolton Grubu (NBG; n:67) ve Yüksek Bolton Grubu (YBG; n:23) olarak sınıflandırılmıştır. Maksiller ve mandibular dişlerin meziodistal genişliğini ölçmek ve aralarındaki sol ve sağ diş boyutu asimetrilerini belirlemek için doğrudan alçı modellerden dijital kumpas ile ölçümler yapılmıştır. Hipotezi test etmek için İstatistiksel Hipotez Testi kullanılmıştır. NBG ve YBG’yi istatistiksel olarak karşılaştırmak için Bağımsız Gruplar “t” testi kullanılmıştır. Sonuçlar p<0.05 anlamlılık düzeyinde değerlendirilmiştir. Bulgular: İstatistiksel hipotez testi sonuçlarına göre, NBG’de üst sağ ve sol dişlerin toplamı arasındaki farkın 0.65±0.55 mm, alt sağ ve sol dişlerin toplamı arasındaki farkın ise 0.55±0.49 mm (p<0.05) bulunurken, YBG’de üst sağ ve sol diş genişliği arasındaki fark 0.55±0.39 mm (p<0.05) ve alt sağ ve sol diş genişliği arasındaki fark 0.53±0.43 mm (p<0.05) olarak bulunmuştur. Bağımsız gruplar “t” testi sonucunda, NBG ve YBG arasında istatistiksel olarak anlamlı bir farklılık bulunmamıştır (p>0.05). Sonuç: Bolton analizi, ideal bir oklüzyon elde etmek için üst ve alt diş boyut uyumsuzluklarını ve oranlarını ifade ederken, bir ortodontik tedavi planında sağ ve sol yarım arklardaki diş boyutu farklılıkları çoğunlukla göz ardı edilmektedir. Sonuçlar hem ABG hem de HBG’de sağ ve sol meziodistal diş genişliği toplamları arasında, uygun ortodontik tedavi sonuçları ve dental orta hat simetrisi elde etmek için dikkate alınması gereken minimal ancak istatistiksel olarak anlamlı farklılıklar olduğunu göstermiştir.

Anahtar Kelimeler

Bolton analizi, yüksek bolton, normal bolton, dental asimetri, diş boyutu uyumsuzluğu

Kaynakça

• 1. Lapenaite E, Lopatiene K. Interproximal enamel reduction as a part of orthodontic treatment. Stomatologija 2014;16(1):19-24. google scholar
• 2. Ülgen M. Ortodonti Anomaliler, Sefalometri, Etiyoloji, Büyüme ve Gelişim, Tanı. Ankara Üniversitesi Basımevi; 2006. google scholar
• 3. McNeill C. Occlusion: what it is and what it is not. J Calif Dent Assoc 2000;28(10):748-58. google scholar
• 4. Agenter MK, Harris EF, Blair RN. Influence of tooth crown size on malocclusion. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop 2009;136(6):795-804. doi:10.1016/j.ajodo.2007.12.030 google scholar
• 5. Hashim HA, Al-Ghamdi S. Tooth width and arch dimensions in normal and malocclusion samples: an odontometric study. J Contemp Dent Pract 2005;6(2):36-51. google scholar
• 6. Black GV. Descriptive Anatomy of the Human Teeth. Philadelphia : Wilmington Dental Manufacturing Co.; 1892. google scholar
• 7. Bolton W. Disharmony In Tooth Size And Its Relation To The Analysis And Treatment Of Malocclusion. Angle Orthod 1958;28:113-30. google scholar
• 8. Lundstrom A. Intermaxillary tooth width ratio and tooth alignment and occlusion. Acta Odontol Scand 1955;12(3-4):265-92. google scholar
• 9. Wheeler R. A Textbook of Dental Anatomy and Physiology. WB Saunders; 1950. google scholar
• 10. Proffit W, Fields H, Ackerman J, Thomas P, Tulloch JFC. Contemporary Orthodontics. Mosby Company; 1986. google scholar
• 11. Proffit W, White R. Surgical-Orthodontic Treatment. Mosby Company; 1991. google scholar
• 12. Pinkham J, Casamassimo P, McTigue D, Fields H, Novvak A. Preventive Dentistry. W.B. Saunders Company; 1994. google scholar
• 13. Jerrold L, Lowenstein LJ. The midline: diagnosis and treatment. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop 1990;97(6):453-62. google scholar
• 14. Becker A, Karnei-R’em RM, Steigman S. The effects of infraocclusion: Part 3. Dental arch length and the midline. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop 1992;102(5):427-33. google scholar
• 15. Sperry TP, Worms FW, Isaacson RJ, Speidel TM. Tooth-size discrepancy in mandibular prognathism. Am J Orthod 1977;72(2):183-90. google scholar
• 16. Gaddam R, Arya S, Shetty KS. Incidence of tooth size discrepancy in different groups of malocclusion and its relation to extraction. J Int Oral Health 2015;7(Suppl 1):48-53. google scholar
• 17. Canadian Tooth Numbering System (By The Numbers). Published online December 22, 2017. 12/04/2022 URL: summerleadental. com/clinicinfo/all-about-the-tooth-numbers/. google scholar
• 18. Chae JM. A new protocol of Tweed-Merrifield directional force technology with microimplant anchorage. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop 2006;130(1):100-9. google scholar
• 19. Asquith J, Gillgrass T, Mossey P. Three-dimensional imaging of orthodontic models: a pilot study. Eur J Orthod 2007;29(5):517-22. google scholar
• 20. Santoro M, Galkin S, Teredesai M, Nicolay OF, Cangialosi TJ. Comparison of measurements made on digital and plaster models. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop 2003;124(1):101-5. google scholar
• 21. Neff C. The size relationship between the maxillary and mandibular anterior segments of the dental arch. Angle Orthod 1957;27:138-47. google scholar
• 22. Lundstrom A. Intermaxillary tooth width ratio and tooth alignment and occlusion. Acta Odontol Scand 1955;12(3-4):265-92. google scholar
• 23. Horowitz S, Osborne R, Degeorge F. Hereditary factors in tooth dimensions, a study of the anterior teeth of twins. Angle Orthod 1958;28(2):87-93. google scholar
• 24. Barrett MJ, Brown T, Luke JI. Dental observations on Australian aborigines: mesiodistal crown diameters of deciduous teeth. Aust Dent J 1963;8(4):299-302. google scholar
• 25. Uğur T. Sürekli dişlerin mesio-distal boyutlarının saptanması. J Istanbul Univ Fac Dent 1975;9:101-43. google scholar
• 26. Keene HJ. Mesiodistal crown diameters of permanent teeth in male American Negroes. Am J Orthod 1979;76(1):95-9. google scholar
• 27. Kapoor DN, Chawla TN, Sharma JK. A study on messio-distal crown width of anterior teeth among north Indians. JIDA: J Indian Dent Assoc 1973;45(8):241-5. google scholar
• 28. Ballard ML, Wylie WL. Mixed dentition case analysis, estimating size of unerupted permanent teeth. Am J Orthod 1947;33(11):754-9. google scholar
• 29. Macko DJ, Ferguson FS, Sonnenberg EM. Mesiodistal crown dimensions of permanent teeth of black Americans. ASDC J Dent Child 1979; 46(4):314-8. google scholar
• 30. Barrett MJ, Brown T, Luke JI. Dental observations on Australian aborigines: mesiodistal crown diameters of deciduous teeth. Aust Dent J 1963;8(4):299-302. google scholar
• 31. Hattab FN, al-Khateeb S, Sultan I. Mesiodistal crown diameters of permanent teeth in Jordanians. Arch Oral Biol 1996;41(7):641-5. google scholar
• 32. Rudolph DJ, Dominguez PD, Ahn K, Thinh T. The use of tooth thickness in predicting intermaxillary tooth-size discrepancies. Angle Orthod 1998;68(2):133-40. google scholar
• 33. Otuyemi OD, Noar JH. A comparison of crown size dimensions of the permanent teeth in a Nigerian and a British population. Eur J Orthod 1996;18(6):623-8. google scholar
• 34. Ballard M. Asymmetry in tooth size : A factor in the etiology, diagnosis and treatment of malocclusion. Angle Orthod 1944;14:67-70. google scholar
• 35. Lysell L, Myrberg N. Mesiodistal tooth size in the deciduous and permanent dentitions. Eur J Orthod 1982;4(2):113-22. google scholar
• 36. Garn SM, Lewis AB, Kerewsky RS. The meaning of bilateral asymmetry in the permanent dentition. Angle Orthod 1966;36(1):55-62. google scholar