SEARCH WITHIN CONTENT
Citation Information : Australasian Orthodontic Journal. Volume 32, Issue 2, Pages 199-205, DOI: https://doi.org/10.21307/aoj-2020-128
License : (CC BY 4.0)
Published Online: 30-July-2021
Introduction: A considered space analysis aims to predict the combined mesiodistal widths of unerupted permanent canine and premolars. A miscalculation can lead to the application of inadequate and irreversible treatments.
Objective: To assess the level of agreement between predictions generated by three methods (Moyers’ predictive tables at the 50th and 75th percentiles and Tanaka-Johnston’s equations) on the sum of unerupted teeth compared with measurements derived from cone beam computed tomography, considered in the present study as a ‘gold standard’.
Materials and methods: The study sample was comprised of children (N = 26) aged 8–13 who visited the Department of Dentistry. Moyers’ predictive tables and the Tanaka-Johnston equation were applied to ascertain the space requirements. Cone beam computed tomography was performed on each patient and the volumetric data analysed. A concordance correlation coefficient between each method’s predictions was applied.
Results: The three methods tended to overestimate the cone beam computed tomography readings and were not able to entirely capture the variability of the sum of the unerupted teeth. Moyers’ 50th percentile estimate revealed a more balanced distribution between over- and underestimation.
Conclusion: The present study suggested that Moyers’ 50th percentile is the predictive method with the lowest absolute error and is preferred for clinical use.
1. Butt S, Chaudhry S, Javed M, Wahid A, Ehsan A, Malik S, Khan AA. Mixed dentition space analysis: a review. Pak Oral Dent J 2012;32:502-7.
2. Galvão M, Dominguez GC, Tormin ST, Akamine A, Tortamano A, de Fantini SM. Applicability of Moyers analysis in mixed dentition: A systematic review. Dental Press J Orthod 2013;18:100-5.
3. Luu NS, Mandich MA, Tieu LD, Kaipatur N, Flores-Mir C. The validity and reliability of mixed-dentition analysis methods: a systematic review. J Am Dent Assoc 2011;142:1143-53.
4. de Paula S, Almeida MA, Lee PC. Prediction of mesiodistal diameter of unerupted lower canines and premolars using 45 degrees cephalometric radiography. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop 1995;107:309-14.
5. Tanaka MM, Johnston LE. The prediction of the size of unerupted canines and premolars in a contemporary orthodontic population. J Am Dent Assoc 1974;88:798-801.
6. Moyers RE. Handbook of Orhodontics. Chicago: YearBook Medical Publishers, 1988.
7. Buwembo W, Luboga S. Moyer’s method of mixed dentition analysis: a meta-analysis. Afr Health Sci 2004;4:63-6.
8. Kapila S, Conley RS, Harrell WE Jr. The current status of cone beam computed tomography imaging in orthodontics. Dentomaxillofac Radiol 2011;40:24-34.
9. Baumgaertel S, Palomo JM, Palomo L, Hans MG. Reliability and accuracy of cone-beam computed tomography dental measurements. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop 2009;136:19-25; discussion 25-8.
10. Berco M, Rigali PH Jr, Miner RM, DeLuca S, Anderson NK, Will LA. Accuracy and reliability of linear cephalometric measurements from cone-beam computed tomography scans of a dry human skull. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop 2009;136:17 e1-9; discussion 17-8.
11. Damstra J, Fourie Z, Huddleston Slater JJ, Ren Y. Reliability and the smallest detectable difference of measurements on 3-dimensional cone-beam computed tomography images. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop 2011;140:e107-14.
12. Moshfeghi M, Tavakoli MA, Hosseini ET, Hosseini AT, Hosseini IT. Analysis of linear measurement accuracy obtained by cone beam computed tomography (CBCT-NewTom VG). Dent Res J (Isfahan) 2012;9(Suppl 1):S57-62.
13. Stratemann SA, Huang JC, Maki K, Miller AJ, Hatcher DC. Comparison of cone beam computed tomography imaging with physical measures. Dentomaxillofac Radiol 2008;37:80-93.
14. Dalessandri D, Bracco P, Paganelli C, Hernandez Soler V, Martin C. Ex vivo measurement reliability using two different cbct scanners for orthodontic purposes. Int J Med Robot 2012;8:230-42.
15. Sakabe J, Kuroki Y, Fujimaki S, Nakajima I, Honda K. Reproducibility and accuracy of measuring unerupted teeth using limited cone beam X-ray CT. Dentomaxillofac Radiol 2007;36:2-6.
16. Nguyen E, Boychuk D, Orellana M. Accuracy of cone-beam computed tomography in predicting the diameter of unerupted teeth. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop 2011;140:e59-66.
17. Luís R, Alves S, Vale F, Lavado N. Preditive methods on mixed dentition analysis – Validation on the Portuguese population. Rev Port Estomatol Med Dent Cir Maxilofac 2013;54:185-90.
18. Jensen E, Kai-Jen Yen P, Moorrees CF, Thomsen SO. Mesiodistal crown diameters of the deciduous and permanent teeth in individuals. J Dent Res 1957;36:39-47.
19. Lin LI. A concordance correlation coefficient to evaluate reproducibility. Biometrics 1989;45:255-68.
20. Lin LI. A note on the concordance correlation coefficient. Biometrics 2000;56:324-5.
21. Lee-Chan S, Jacobson BN, Chwa KH, Jacobson RS. Mixed dentition analysis for Asian-Americans. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop 1998;113:293-9.
22. Flores-Mir C, Bernabé E, Camus C, Carhuayo MA, Major PW. Prediction of mesiodistal canine and premolar tooth width in a sample of Peruvian adolescents. Orthod Craniofac Res 2003;6:173-6.
23. American Academy of Oral and Maxillofacial Radiology. Clinical recommendations regarding use of cone beam computed tomography in orthodontics. [corrected]. Position statement by the American Academy of Oral and Maxillofacial Radiology. Oral Surg Oral Med Oral Pathol Oral Radiol. 2013;116:238-57.
24. Silva MA, Wolf U, Heinicke F, Bumann A, Visser H, Hirsch E. Conebeam computed tomography for routine orthodontic treatment planning: a radiation dose evaluation. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop 2008;133:640 e1-5.