European Archives of Paediatric Dentistry

, Volume 16, Issue 2, pp 211–217 | Cite as

Effect of intermaxillary tooth-size discrepancy on accuracy of prediction equations for mixed dentition space analysis

  • R. KhannaEmail author
  • R. K. Pandey
  • S. Tripathi
Original Scientific Article



Correlation-statistical methods are widely used for prediction of size of unerupted permanent canines and premolars in mixed dentition space analysis. The present study was planned to evaluate the effect of selecting dental study casts with no intermaxillary tooth-size discrepancy on the accuracy of predicting mesiodistal widths (MDWS) of permanent canines and premolars.

Study design

Bolton ratios were calculated for all the screened study dental casts fulfilling the inclusion criteria. Subjects were divided into two groups. Group A: all subjects with no intermaxillary tooth-size discrepancy within ±2 SD (Standard deviation) of the mean values. Group B: increased percentage of subjects with intermaxillary tooth-size discrepancy beyond ±2 SD (Standard deviation) of the mean values.


Linear regression equations were established for both maxilla and mandible in both the groups, with different tooth combinations as independent variables. Validation of best possible regression equations was done on an independent set of 40 subjects. The actual and predicted values of MDWS of permanent canines and premolars were compared by paired samples t test in both groups, for both arches.


The accuracy of equations derived from group A was higher than those derived from group B. The difference between actual and predicted values was statistically insignificant in group A and statistically significant in group B.


The results confirm the accuracy of simple linear regression equations derived from a sample of children with no intermaxillary tooth-size discrepancy.


Bolton ratio Mixed dentition analysis Intermaxillary tooth-size discrepancy 


  1. Abu Alhaija ESJ, Qudeimat MA. Mixed dentition space analysis in a Jordanian population: comparison of two methods. Int J Pediatr Dent. 2006;16:104–10.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Al-Bitar ZB, Al-Omari IK, Sonbol HN, Al-Ahmed HT, Hamdan AM. Mixed dentition analysis in a Jordanian population. Angle Orthod. 2008;78:670–5.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  3. Altherra ER, Korolukb LD, Phillips C. Influence of sex and ethnic tooth-size differences on mixeddentition space analysis. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop. 2007;132(3):332–9.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Bernabe E, Flores-Mir C. Are lower incisors the best predictors for the unerupted canine and premolars sums? An analysis of a Peruvian sample. Angle Orthod. 2005;75:198–203.Google Scholar
  5. Boboca A, Dibbets J. Prediction of the mesiodistal width of unerupted permanent canines and premolars: a statistical approach. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop. 2010;137(4):503–7.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Bolton WA. Disharmony in tooth size and its relation to the analysis and treatment of malocclusion. Angle Orthod. 1958;28:113–30.Google Scholar
  7. Carey CW. Linear arch dimension and tooth size. Am J Orthod. 1949;35:762–75.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  8. Crosby DR, Alexander CG. The occurrence of tooth size discrepancies among different malocclusion groups. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop. 1989;95(6):457–61.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  9. Dahlberg G. Statistical methods for medical and biological students. London: George Allen and Unwin; 1940. p. 122–32.Google Scholar
  10. de Paula S, Almeida MA, Lee PC. Prediction of the mesiodistal diameter of unerupted lower canines and premolars using 45 degree cephalometric radiography. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop. 1995;107:309–14.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  11. Durgekar SG, Naik V. Evaluation of Moyers mixed dentition analysis in school children. Indian J Dent Res. 2009;20(1):26–30.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  12. Hixon EH, Oldfather RE. Estimation of the sizes of unerupted cuspid and bicuspid teeth. Angle Orthod. 1958;28:236–40.Google Scholar
  13. Huckaba GW. Arch size analysis and tooth size prediction. Dent Clin North Am. 1964;9:685–97.Google Scholar
  14. Johe RS, Steinhart T, Sado N, Greenberg B, Jing S. Intermaxillary tooth-size discrepancies in different sexes, malocclusion groups, and ethnicities. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop. 2010;138(5):599–607.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  15. Legovic M, Novosel A, Legovic A. Regression equations for determining mesiodistal crown diameters of canines and premolars. Angle Orthod. 2003;73:314–8.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  16. Makinson D. Counting things combinatorics. In: Mackie I, editor. Sets, logic and maths for computing. London: Springer; 2008. p. 113–36.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Martinelli FL, Lima EM, Rocha R, Arau´ jo MST. Prediction of lower permanent canine and premolars width by correlation methods. Angle Orthod. 2005;75(3):236–40.Google Scholar
  18. Melgaço CA, de Sousa Araújo MT, de Oliveira Ruellas A. Mandibular permanent first molar and incisor width as predictor of mandibular canine and premolar width. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop. 2007;132:369–72.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Memon S, Fida M. Development of a prediction equation for the estimation of mandibular canine and premolar widths from mandibular first permanent molar and incisor widths. Eur J Orthod. 2012;34:340–4.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  20. Moorrees CF, Thomsen SN, Jensen E, Yen PK. Mesiodistal crown diameters of the deciduous and permanent teeth in individuals. J Dent Res. 1957;36:39–47.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  21. Moyers RE. Handbook of orthodontics. 4th ed. Chicago: Year Book Medical Publishers; 1958.Google Scholar
  22. Nourallah AW, Gesch D, Khordaji MN, Splieth C. New regression equations for predicting the size of unerupted canines and premolars in a contemporary population. Angle Orthod. 2002;72:216–21.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  23. Pancherz H, Schaffer C. Individual-based prediction of size of the supporting zones in the permanent dentition. A comparison of the Moyers method with a unitary prediction value. J Orofac Orthop. 1999;60:227–35.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  24. Parades V, Gandia JL, Cibrian RA. New, accurate and fast digital method to predict unerupted tooth size. Angle Orthod. 2006;76:14–9.Google Scholar
  25. Shah S, Bhaskar V, Venkataraghvan K, et al. Applicability of regression equation using widths of mandibular permanent first molars and incisors as a predictor of widths of mandibular canines and premolars in contemporary Indian population. J Indian Soc Pedod Prev Dent. 2013;31:135–40.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  26. Sharma R, Kumar S, Singla A. Prevalence of tooth size discrepancy among North Indian orthodontic patients. Contemp Clin Dent. 2011;2:170–5.CrossRefPubMedCentralPubMedGoogle Scholar
  27. Staley RN, Hoag JF. Prediction of the mesiodistal widths of maxillary permanent canines and premolars. Am J Orthod. 1978;73(2):169–77.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  28. Staley RN, Kreber PE. A revision of the Hixon and Oldfather mixed dentition prediction method. Am J Orthod. 1980;78:296–302.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  29. Tahere nik H, Majid S, Mohandes Fateme M, Fard K, Javad M. Predicting the size of unerupted canines and premolars of the maxillary and mandibular quadrants in an Iranian population. J Clin Pediatr Dent. 2007;32(1):43–7.Google Scholar
  30. Tanaka MM, Johnston LE. The prediction of the size of unerupted canine and premolars in a contemporary orthodontic population. J Am Dent Assoc. 1974;88:798–801.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Uysal T, Ayhan Basciftci F, Goyenc Y. New regression equations for mixed-dentition arch analysis in a Turkish sample with no Bolton tooth-size discrepancy. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop. 2009;135(3):343–8.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© European Academy of Paediatric Dentistry 2014

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of Paediatric and Preventive DentistryKing George’s Medical UniversityLucknowIndia
  2. 2.Department of Prosthodontics and Crown &BridgeKing George’s Medical UniversityLucknowIndia

Personalised recommendations