Table 1 - uploaded by Mohammad Khursheed Alam
Content may be subject to copyright.
Digital caliper: Bolton's anterior ratio and Bolton's overall ratio of tooth size discrepancy
Source publication
Objective:
Comprehensive diagnosis and treatment planning are essential in a successful orthodontic practice. The purpose of this study is to determine and compare intermaxillary tooth size discrepancy (IMTSD) using traditional digital caliper (DC) measurement on plaster dental models and stereomicroscopic digital dental models (SM).
Materials an...
Context in source publication
Context 1
... SM showed 0.005, 0.004, for the above variables, respectively. Table 1 show the descriptive statistics including mean values, SDs for the sum of maxillary canine to canine and first molar to the first molar with significant greater value for male in relation to females obtained via DC (***P ≤ 0.001), (**P ≤ 0.01) and (*P ≤ 0.05). There were no significant differences observed in the BAR and BOR ratio for male and female via DC methods. ...
Similar publications
Objective
Anxiety towards dental procedures are common difficulties that may be experienced by dental patients all over the world. This study focused on evaluating the dental anxiety frequency and its relationship with age, gender, educational level, and past dental visits among patients attending the outpatient clinics of College of Dentistry, Al...
Citations
... 45 In this regard, we assumed Anusavice criteria to detect chipping, fractures, and other causes of failure even if his method was proposed for posterior prosthetic restorations. 27 The decision to deeply focus our attention on proportions of teeth was due to the main importance of this aspect in esthetical rehabilitations in dentistry 46 ; our data were found to be generally in accordance with those in the literature. 47 However, some clarifications are needed. ...
Objectives Primary aim of this study was to evaluate survival rate of lithium disilicate veneers in upper and lower anterior teeth. Secondary aims were to evaluate changing in proportions of teeth before and after restorations and to assess mean thickness of the veneers.
Materials and Methods Seventy-nine upper and lower lithium disilicate veneers were made in 13 patients with worn teeth. Mean follow-up was 3 years. To perform anterior definitive rehabilitations, malocclusions and loss of vertical dimension were treated by full mouth rehabilitations to obtain proper occlusal conditions. Veneers were made of lithium disilicate core and fluorapatite-based ceramic stratification. Survival rate was calculated by Kaplan–Meier analysis. Changing in teeth proportion before and after restorations was analyzed by a paired t-test. Descriptive statistics of thickness values were also performed.
Results One case of detachment was observed with a 98.7% survival rate. Teeth’s proportions were preserved although first upper right incisor and canine changed in
dimension.
Conclusions Lithium disilicate veneers in esthetical rehabilitations of worn teeth proved to be an effective way of treatment in a medium follow-up of 3 years. Proportions seemed to be maintained with a minimum dental removal.
... However, in some cases need to replace with the protraction of maxillary cupids or prosthetic intervention. [15][16][17] Therefore, to recognize the prevalence of maxillary lateral incisors (agenesis/ peg shaped) is of utmost importance in dentistry. ...
Maxillary lateral incisors are only second to third molars, when it comes to variation in the form or morphology. Since the upper lateral incisors play an important role in the appearance of smile, any abnormality in their appearance or their complete absence, always attracts a great deal of attention. The prime objective of this study was to determine the prevalence of peg shaped and missing permanent maxillary lateral incisors in a Pakistani population. The total sample size for this study comprised of 650 patients (N = 650) belonging to both genders (Males: 350; Females: 300) and the age range of the participants was 18-25 years. The routine pre-orthodontic records were obtained. The intra oral clinical and radiographic examination was performed for peg and missing maxillary lateral incisors. Data were collected and analyzed statistically using chi-square test. The male participants had greater percentage of missing maxillary lateral incisors as compared to the females, but the difference was not statistically significant (p-value = 0.398). Females had greater prevalence of peg lateral incisors as compared to their male counterparts, but the difference was not statistically significant (p-value = 0.274). Maxillary lateral incisors are one of the forward-facing important tooth to achieve the pleasant smile and ideal occlusion. The peg shaped and missing maxillary lateral incisors leads to tooth size discrepancies, therefore they must be considered in orthodontic diagnosis and treatment planning.
... Among the included studies, no study was of high quality. Moreover, 47 articles presented medium quality, of which 11 articles presented 8 points (Asma, 2013;Bugaighis et al., 2015;Cançado et al., 2015;Celikoglu et al., 2013;Ismail and Abuaffan, 2015;Machado et al., 2018;McSwiney et al., 2014;Nie and Lin, 1999;Shahid et al., 2016;Saritha et al., 2017;Ta et al., 2001) and 39 articles presented 7 points (Al-Duliamy et al., 2016;Al Sulaimani and Afify, 2006;Alkofide and Hashim, 2002;Carreiro et al., 2005;Chugh et al., 2015;Cİğer et al., 2006;Crosby and Alexander, 1989;Elsheikhi et al., 2017;Endo et al., 2007Endo et al., , 2009Endo et al., , 2010Fernandes et al., 2010;Freire et al., 2007;Hashim et al., 2015;Hyder et al., 2012;Jindal and Bunger, 2013;Jóias and Scanavini, 2011;Jóias et al., 2010;Kansal et al., 2012;Lavelle, 1972;Lee et al., 2011;Lombardo et al., 2016;Machado et al., 2018;Manopatanakul and Watanawirun, 2011;Maurya et al., 2015;Mollabashi et al., 2019;Mulimani et al., 2018;O'Mahony et al., 2011;Oktay and Ulukaya, 2010;Patel et al., 2017;Ricci et al., 2013;Sakoda et al., 2016;Shahid et al., 2016;Shastri et al., 2015;Škrinjarić et al., 2018;Uysal et al., 2005;Vela et al., 2011;Zerouaoui et al., 2014). Five were of low quality (Anil and Monika, 2010;Devi et al., 2017;Kumar and Chitra, 2017;Mirzakouchaki et al., 2007;Subbarao et al., 2014) and, consequently, were excluded. ...
... Among the included studies, no study was of high quality. Moreover, 47 articles presented medium quality, of which 11 articles presented 8 points (Asma, 2013;Bugaighis et al., 2015;Cançado et al., 2015;Celikoglu et al., 2013;Ismail and Abuaffan, 2015;Machado et al., 2018;McSwiney et al., 2014;Nie and Lin, 1999;Shahid et al., 2016;Saritha et al., 2017;Ta et al., 2001) and 39 articles presented 7 points (Al-Duliamy et al., 2016;Al Sulaimani and Afify, 2006;Alkofide and Hashim, 2002;Carreiro et al., 2005;Chugh et al., 2015;Cİğer et al., 2006;Crosby and Alexander, 1989;Elsheikhi et al., 2017;Endo et al., 2007Endo et al., , 2009Endo et al., , 2010Fernandes et al., 2010;Freire et al., 2007;Hashim et al., 2015;Hyder et al., 2012;Jindal and Bunger, 2013;Jóias and Scanavini, 2011;Jóias et al., 2010;Kansal et al., 2012;Lavelle, 1972;Lee et al., 2011;Lombardo et al., 2016;Machado et al., 2018;Manopatanakul and Watanawirun, 2011;Maurya et al., 2015;Mollabashi et al., 2019;Mulimani et al., 2018;O'Mahony et al., 2011;Oktay and Ulukaya, 2010;Patel et al., 2017;Ricci et al., 2013;Sakoda et al., 2016;Shahid et al., 2016;Shastri et al., 2015;Škrinjarić et al., 2018;Uysal et al., 2005;Vela et al., 2011;Zerouaoui et al., 2014). Five were of low quality (Anil and Monika, 2010;Devi et al., 2017;Kumar and Chitra, 2017;Mirzakouchaki et al., 2007;Subbarao et al., 2014) and, consequently, were excluded. ...
... More specifically, only seven studies reported the setting, locations and relevant dates of cast models (Asma, 2013;Kansal et al., 2012;Lee et al., 2011;Machado et al., 2018;Nie and Lin, 1999;Saritha et al., 2017;Ta et al., 2001) and seven determined the sample size (Bugaighis et al., 2015;Cançado et al., 2015;Celikoglu et al., 2013;Ismail and Abuaffan, 2015;McSwiney et al., 2014;Shahid et al., 2016;Ta et al., 2001). Strategies to minimise the potential sources of bias were not clearly described in most articles. ...
Introduction
The purpose of this study was to seek and summarise the Bolton overall index (OI) and anterior index (AI) regarding normal occlusion and Angle’s malocclusion according to gender, and to assess if these indices support Bolton’s standards as general references.
Methods
PubMed, LILACS, Embase, CENTRAL and Google Scholar databases were searched up to June 2019 (CRD42018088438). Non-randomised clinical studies, published in English and assessing Bolton’s OI and/or AI in normal occlusion and Angle’s malocclusion groups, were included. OI and AI means, sample size and SDs were collected. The National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute’s Quality Assessment Tool for Observational Cohort and Cross-Sectional Studies was used to assess the risk of bias. Pairwise random-effects and multilevel Bayesian network meta-analyses were used to synthesise available data.
Results
Fifty-three observational studies were included (11,411 participants; 3746 men, 4430 women; 15 studies lacked gender information). For normal occlusion, pooled estimates for OI and AI means were 91.78% (95% confidence interval [CI] = 91.42–92.14; I ² = 92.87%) and 78.25% (95% CI = 77.87–78.62; I ² = 90.67%), respectively. We could identify in Angle’s Class III patients meaningful OI and AI mean deviations from normal occlusion (0.76, 95% credible interval [CrI] = 0.55–0.98 and 0.61, 95% CrI = 0.35–0.87, respectively), while in Class II patients we found a meaningful mean deviation from normal occlusion only for OI (−0.28, 95% CrI = −0.52–−0.05). Concerning gender impact, male patients presented higher OI (0.30, 95% CI = 0.00–0.59) and AI (0.41, 95% CI = 0.00–0.83) mean values than female patients in Class I.
Conclusion
Normal occlusion OI and AI mean values differ from Bolton’s original values. Class II division 2, for OI mean values, and Class III, for both OI and AI, are proportionally larger than normal occlusion patients. Gender had almost no impact on teeth mesiodistal proportion.
... Among the included studies, no study was of high quality. Moreover, 47 articles presented medium quality, of which 11 articles presented 8 points (Asma, 2013; Bugaighis et al., 2015;Cançado et al., 2015;Celikoglu et al., 2013;Ismail and Abuaffan, 2015;Machado et al., 2018;McSwiney et al., 2014;Nie and Lin, 1999;Shahid et al., 2016;Saritha et al., 2017;Ta et al., 2001) and 39 articles presented 7 points (Al-Duliamy et al., 2016;Al Sulaimani and Afify, 2006;Alkofide and Hashim, 2002;Carreiro et al., 2005;Chugh et al., 2015;Cİğer et al., 2006;Crosby and Alexander, 1989;Elsheikhi et al., 2017;Endo et al., 2007Endo et al., , 2009Endo et al., , 2010Fernandes et al., 2010;Freire et al., 2007;Hashim et al., 2015;Hyder et al., 2012;Jindal and Bunger, 2013;Jóias and Scanavini, 2011;Jóias et al., 2010;Kansal et al., 2012;Lavelle, 1972;Lee et al., 2011;Lombardo et al., 2016;Machado et al., 2018;Manopatanakul and Watanawirun, 2011;Maurya et al., 2015;Mollabashi et al., 2019;Mulimani et al., 2018;O'Mahony et al., 2011;Oktay and Ulukaya, 2010;Patel et al., 2017;Ricci et al., 2013;Sakoda et al., 2016;Shahid et al., 2016;Shastri et al., 2015;Škrinjarić et al., 2018;Uysal et al., 2005;Vela et al., 2011;Zerouaoui et al., 2014). Five were of low quality (Anil and Monika, 2010; Devi et al., 2017;Kumar and Chitra, 2017;Mirzakouchaki et al., 2007;Subbarao et al., 2014) and, consequently, were excluded. ...
... Among the included studies, no study was of high quality. Moreover, 47 articles presented medium quality, of which 11 articles presented 8 points (Asma, 2013; Bugaighis et al., 2015;Cançado et al., 2015;Celikoglu et al., 2013;Ismail and Abuaffan, 2015;Machado et al., 2018;McSwiney et al., 2014;Nie and Lin, 1999;Shahid et al., 2016;Saritha et al., 2017;Ta et al., 2001) and 39 articles presented 7 points (Al-Duliamy et al., 2016;Al Sulaimani and Afify, 2006;Alkofide and Hashim, 2002;Carreiro et al., 2005;Chugh et al., 2015;Cİğer et al., 2006;Crosby and Alexander, 1989;Elsheikhi et al., 2017;Endo et al., 2007Endo et al., , 2009Endo et al., , 2010Fernandes et al., 2010;Freire et al., 2007;Hashim et al., 2015;Hyder et al., 2012;Jindal and Bunger, 2013;Jóias and Scanavini, 2011;Jóias et al., 2010;Kansal et al., 2012;Lavelle, 1972;Lee et al., 2011;Lombardo et al., 2016;Machado et al., 2018;Manopatanakul and Watanawirun, 2011;Maurya et al., 2015;Mollabashi et al., 2019;Mulimani et al., 2018;O'Mahony et al., 2011;Oktay and Ulukaya, 2010;Patel et al., 2017;Ricci et al., 2013;Sakoda et al., 2016;Shahid et al., 2016;Shastri et al., 2015;Škrinjarić et al., 2018;Uysal et al., 2005;Vela et al., 2011;Zerouaoui et al., 2014). Five were of low quality (Anil and Monika, 2010; Devi et al., 2017;Kumar and Chitra, 2017;Mirzakouchaki et al., 2007;Subbarao et al., 2014) and, consequently, were excluded. ...
... More specifically, only seven studies reported the setting, locations and relevant dates of cast models (Asma, 2013; Kansal et al., 2012;Lee et al., 2011;Machado et al., 2018;Nie and Lin, 1999;Saritha et al., 2017;Ta et al., 2001) and seven determined the sample size (Bugaighis et al., 2015;Cançado et al., 2015;Celikoglu et al., 2013;Ismail and Abuaffan, 2015;McSwiney et al., 2014;Shahid et al., 2016;Ta et al., 2001). Strategies to minimise the potential sources of bias were not clearly described in most articles. ...
Introduction: The purposes of this study were to seek and summarize
overall index (OI) and anterior index (AI) regarding normal occlusion and
Angle’s malocclusion and according to gender, to assess if such results
support Bolton’s standards as general references.
Methods: Pubmed, LILACS, Embase, CENTRAL and Google Scholar
databases were searched up to June 2019 (CRD42018088438). Non-
randomized clinical studies, published in English and assessing Bolton’s
OI and/or AI in normal occlusion and Angle’s malocclusion groups were
included. OI and AI means, sample size and standard deviations (SD)
were collected. The National Health Heart Lung, and Blood Institute’s
Quality Assessment Tool for Observational Cohort and Cross-Sectional
Studies was used to assess the risk of bias. Pairwise Random-Effects and
Multilevel Bayesian Network Meta-Analyses were used to synthesize
available data.
Results: Fifty-three observational studies were included (11411 subjects;
male/females 3746/4430; 15 studies lacked gender information). For
normal occlusion, pooled estimates for OI and AI means were 91.78%
(95% CI: 91.42-92.14; I2=92.87%) and 78.25% (95% CI: 77.87-
78.62; I2=90.67%), respectively. We could identify on Angle’s Class III
patients meaningful OI and AI mean deviations from normal occlusion
(0.76, 95% credible interval [CrI], 0.55-0.98, and 0.61, 95% CrI, 0.35-
0.87, respectively), while on Class II patients we found a meaningful
mean deviation from normal occlusion only for OI (-0.28, 95% CrI, -
0.52- -0.05). Concerning gender impact, male patients presented higher
OI (0.30, 95% CI 0.00-0.59) and AI (0.41, 95% CI 0.00-0.83) mean
values than females in Class I.
Conclusions: Normal occlusion OI and AI mean values differ from
Bolton’s original values. Class II division 2, for OI mean values, and
Class III, for both OI and AI, are proportionally larger than normal
occlusion patients. Gender had almost no impact on teeth mesiodistal
proportion.
... Among the included studies, no study was of high quality. Moreover, 47 articles presented medium quality, of which 11 articles presented 8 points (Asma, 2013;Bugaighis et al., 2015;Cançado et al., 2015;Celikoglu et al., 2013;Ismail and Abuaffan, 2015;Machado et al., 2018;McSwiney et al., 2014;Nie and Lin, 1999;Shahid et al., 2016;Saritha et al., 2017;Ta et al., 2001) and 39 articles presented 7 points (Al-Duliamy et al., 2016;Al Sulaimani and Afify, 2006;Alkofide and Hashim, 2002;Carreiro et al., 2005;Chugh et al., 2015;Cİğer et al., 2006;Crosby and Alexander, 1989;Elsheikhi et al., 2017;Endo et al., 2007Endo et al., , 2009Endo et al., , 2010Fernandes et al., 2010;Freire et al., 2007;Hashim et al., 2015;Hyder et al., 2012;Jindal and Bunger, 2013;Jóias and Scanavini, 2011;Jóias et al., 2010;Kansal et al., 2012;Lavelle, 1972;Lee et al., 2011;Lombardo et al., 2016;Machado et al., 2018;Manopatanakul and Watanawirun, 2011;Maurya et al., 2015;Mollabashi et al., 2019;Mulimani et al., 2018;O'Mahony et al., 2011;Oktay and Ulukaya, 2010;Patel et al., 2017;Ricci et al., 2013;Sakoda et al., 2016;Shahid et al., 2016;Shastri et al., 2015;Škrinjarić et al., 2018;Uysal et al., 2005;Vela et al., 2011;Zerouaoui et al., 2014). Five were of low quality (Anil and Monika, 2010;Devi et al., 2017;Kumar and Chitra, 2017;Mirzakouchaki et al., 2007;Subbarao et al., 2014) and, consequently, were excluded. ...
... Among the included studies, no study was of high quality. Moreover, 47 articles presented medium quality, of which 11 articles presented 8 points (Asma, 2013;Bugaighis et al., 2015;Cançado et al., 2015;Celikoglu et al., 2013;Ismail and Abuaffan, 2015;Machado et al., 2018;McSwiney et al., 2014;Nie and Lin, 1999;Shahid et al., 2016;Saritha et al., 2017;Ta et al., 2001) and 39 articles presented 7 points (Al-Duliamy et al., 2016;Al Sulaimani and Afify, 2006;Alkofide and Hashim, 2002;Carreiro et al., 2005;Chugh et al., 2015;Cİğer et al., 2006;Crosby and Alexander, 1989;Elsheikhi et al., 2017;Endo et al., 2007Endo et al., , 2009Endo et al., , 2010Fernandes et al., 2010;Freire et al., 2007;Hashim et al., 2015;Hyder et al., 2012;Jindal and Bunger, 2013;Jóias and Scanavini, 2011;Jóias et al., 2010;Kansal et al., 2012;Lavelle, 1972;Lee et al., 2011;Lombardo et al., 2016;Machado et al., 2018;Manopatanakul and Watanawirun, 2011;Maurya et al., 2015;Mollabashi et al., 2019;Mulimani et al., 2018;O'Mahony et al., 2011;Oktay and Ulukaya, 2010;Patel et al., 2017;Ricci et al., 2013;Sakoda et al., 2016;Shahid et al., 2016;Shastri et al., 2015;Škrinjarić et al., 2018;Uysal et al., 2005;Vela et al., 2011;Zerouaoui et al., 2014). Five were of low quality (Anil and Monika, 2010;Devi et al., 2017;Kumar and Chitra, 2017;Mirzakouchaki et al., 2007;Subbarao et al., 2014) and, consequently, were excluded. ...
... More specifically, only seven studies reported the setting, locations and relevant dates of cast models (Asma, 2013;Kansal et al., 2012;Lee et al., 2011;Machado et al., 2018;Nie and Lin, 1999;Saritha et al., 2017;Ta et al., 2001) and seven determined the sample size (Bugaighis et al., 2015;Cançado et al., 2015;Celikoglu et al., 2013;Ismail and Abuaffan, 2015;McSwiney et al., 2014;Shahid et al., 2016;Ta et al., 2001). Strategies to minimise the potential sources of bias were not clearly described in most articles. ...
Background: This systematic review aimed to compare the pain discomfort levels between InvisalignⓇ aligners comparing with traditional fixed appliances at multiple time points, through Pain Visual Analog Scale (VAS). Methods: Four electronic databases (Pubmed, Medline, CENTRAL and Scholar) were searched up to February 2019. There were no restrictions on year and publication status. Randomized clinical trials (RCTs) and case-control studies comparing pain perception through VAS in patients treated with Invisalign aligners and with labial appliances were included. Risk of bias within and across studies was assessed using Cochrane tool and Newcastle-Ottawa Scale (NOS) approach. Random-effects meta-analysis were conducted. VAS score at 1, 3 and 7 days, and analgesic consumption was collected. Pairwise and Binary Random-Effects Meta-analyses were used to synthesize available data. Results: At the initial search, a total of 87 articles were retrieved. Following the review protocol, 4 articles met the inclusion criteria and were included, with a total of 214 participants (139 females, 75 males). All studies were considered of high methodological quality. The results demonstrate that Invisalign aligners seems to be associated with significantly less pain than fixed appliances at 7 days after beginning the orthodontic treatment, although at 1 and 3 days the pain experience was similar in both orthodontics appliances. In regard to the type of material, SmartTrackⓇ aligners appear to give significantly better comfort for orthodontic patients than previous standard material, being that 3 days after appliance’s insertion this pain differential becomes significant, and this difference is more pronounced at 7 days. Conclusion: Patients treated with Invisalign experience less pain discomfort than those treated with fixed appliances and consume less analgesics. Overall, Invisalign promotes better pain and discomfort experience for the patient in the course of orthodontic treatment. Larger RCTs are needed to definitely demonstrate these findings throughout the orthodontic treatment.
... Among the included studies, no study was of high quality. Moreover, 47 articles presented medium quality, of which 11 articles presented 8 points (Asma, 2013;Bugaighis et al., 2015;Cançado et al., 2015;Celikoglu et al., 2013;Ismail and Abuaffan, 2015;Machado et al., 2018;McSwiney et al., 2014;Nie and Lin, 1999;Shahid et al., 2016;Saritha et al., 2017;Ta et al., 2001) and 39 articles presented 7 points (Al-Duliamy et al., 2016;Al Sulaimani and Afify, 2006;Alkofide and Hashim, 2002;Carreiro et al., 2005;Chugh et al., 2015;Cİğer et al., 2006;Crosby and Alexander, 1989;Elsheikhi et al., 2017;Endo et al., 2007Endo et al., , 2009Endo et al., , 2010Fernandes et al., 2010;Freire et al., 2007;Hashim et al., 2015;Hyder et al., 2012;Jindal and Bunger, 2013;Jóias and Scanavini, 2011;Jóias et al., 2010;Kansal et al., 2012;Lavelle, 1972;Lee et al., 2011;Lombardo et al., 2016;Machado et al., 2018;Manopatanakul and Watanawirun, 2011;Maurya et al., 2015;Mollabashi et al., 2019;Mulimani et al., 2018;O'Mahony et al., 2011;Oktay and Ulukaya, 2010;Patel et al., 2017;Ricci et al., 2013;Sakoda et al., 2016;Shahid et al., 2016;Shastri et al., 2015;Škrinjarić et al., 2018;Uysal et al., 2005;Vela et al., 2011;Zerouaoui et al., 2014). Five were of low quality (Anil and Monika, 2010;Devi et al., 2017;Kumar and Chitra, 2017;Mirzakouchaki et al., 2007;Subbarao et al., 2014) and, consequently, were excluded. ...
... Among the included studies, no study was of high quality. Moreover, 47 articles presented medium quality, of which 11 articles presented 8 points (Asma, 2013;Bugaighis et al., 2015;Cançado et al., 2015;Celikoglu et al., 2013;Ismail and Abuaffan, 2015;Machado et al., 2018;McSwiney et al., 2014;Nie and Lin, 1999;Shahid et al., 2016;Saritha et al., 2017;Ta et al., 2001) and 39 articles presented 7 points (Al-Duliamy et al., 2016;Al Sulaimani and Afify, 2006;Alkofide and Hashim, 2002;Carreiro et al., 2005;Chugh et al., 2015;Cİğer et al., 2006;Crosby and Alexander, 1989;Elsheikhi et al., 2017;Endo et al., 2007Endo et al., , 2009Endo et al., , 2010Fernandes et al., 2010;Freire et al., 2007;Hashim et al., 2015;Hyder et al., 2012;Jindal and Bunger, 2013;Jóias and Scanavini, 2011;Jóias et al., 2010;Kansal et al., 2012;Lavelle, 1972;Lee et al., 2011;Lombardo et al., 2016;Machado et al., 2018;Manopatanakul and Watanawirun, 2011;Maurya et al., 2015;Mollabashi et al., 2019;Mulimani et al., 2018;O'Mahony et al., 2011;Oktay and Ulukaya, 2010;Patel et al., 2017;Ricci et al., 2013;Sakoda et al., 2016;Shahid et al., 2016;Shastri et al., 2015;Škrinjarić et al., 2018;Uysal et al., 2005;Vela et al., 2011;Zerouaoui et al., 2014). Five were of low quality (Anil and Monika, 2010;Devi et al., 2017;Kumar and Chitra, 2017;Mirzakouchaki et al., 2007;Subbarao et al., 2014) and, consequently, were excluded. ...
... More specifically, only seven studies reported the setting, locations and relevant dates of cast models (Asma, 2013;Kansal et al., 2012;Lee et al., 2011;Machado et al., 2018;Nie and Lin, 1999;Saritha et al., 2017;Ta et al., 2001) and seven determined the sample size (Bugaighis et al., 2015;Cançado et al., 2015;Celikoglu et al., 2013;Ismail and Abuaffan, 2015;McSwiney et al., 2014;Shahid et al., 2016;Ta et al., 2001). Strategies to minimise the potential sources of bias were not clearly described in most articles. ...
Introduction: The purposes of this study were to seek for overall ratio (OR) and anterior ratio (AR) patients data in normal occlusion and Angle’s malocclusion studies, and to assess if such results support Bolton’s standards as general references.
Methods: Pubmed, Medline, CENTRAL and Scholar databases were searched up to February 2018 (CRD42018088438). Gray literature was explored through OpenGray. Non-randomized clinical studies, published in English and assessing Bolton’s OR and AR in normal occlusion and Angle’s malocclusion groups (Class I, Class II, Class II division 1, Class 2 division 2, Class III) patients were included. OR and AR means and standard deviations (SD) were collected. Potential covariates (study design, publication year, country where the study was conducted, number of cases, gender, mesiodistal measurement method, and calibration method) were also extracted. The National Health Heart Lung, and Blood Institute’s Quality Assessment Tool for Observational Cohort and Cross-Sectional Studies was used to assess each included studies quality. Pairwise Random-Effects and Multilevel Bayesian Network Meta-Analyses were used to synthesize available data.
Results: Fifty-two observational studies were included (8872 participants; male/females 2674/3272; 16 studies lacked gender information). For normal occlusion, global pooled estimates for OR and AR means were 91.74% (95% CI: 91.37-92.10) and 78.24% (95% CI: 77.85-78.63), respectively. We could identify on Angle’s Class III patients meaningful OR and AR mean deviations from normal occlusion (0.89, 95% credible interval [CrI], 0.66-1.12, and 0.66, 95% CrI, 0.38-0.94, respectively), while on Class I patients we found a meaningful mean deviation from normal occlusion only for OR (0.25, 95% CrI, 0.03-0.47). Concerning gender impact, male patients presented higher OR (0.30, 95% CI 0.00-0.59) and AR (0.41, 95% CI 0.00-0.83) mean values than females in Class I.
Conclusions: The results show that global pooled OR and AR mean values for normal occlusion patients are slightly above Bolton’s original values. Class I, for OR mean values, and Class III, for both OR and AR, are proportionally larger than normal occlusion patients. Gender had almost no impact on teeth mesiodistal proportion.
... After 1999 larger datasets were published on different continents. Fifty-two crosssectional studies from four different continents, namely Africa (12,30,34,36,(44)(45)(46), Asia (12,24,25,31,32,34,35,37,38,(40)(41)(42)(47)(48)(49)(50)(51)(52)(53)(54)(55)(56)(57)(58), South America (26,33,39,(59)(60)(61)(62)(63)(64)(65)(66), and Europe (12,22,43,(67)(68)(69)(70)(71)(72)(73)(74) were included in the qualitative synthesis. Lavelle's (12) and Al-Duliamy's (34) were multicentric studies that comprised European, Asian, and African subjects, and Asian and African participants, respectively. ...
... Among the included studies, no study presented high quality. Moreover, forty-seven articles presented medium quality, of which eleven articles presented 8 points (30,33,37,43,44,48,52,53,58,67,75), and thirty-six articles presented 7 points (12,22,25,26,31,(34)(35)(36)38,39,42,(45)(46)(47)(48)(49)(50)(51)(54)(55)(56)(57)(59)(60)(61)(62)(63)(64)(65)67,68,(70)(71)(72)76). Five were of low quality (77)(78)(79)(80)(81) and, consequently, were excluded. ...
... Among the included studies, no study presented high quality. Moreover, forty-seven articles presented medium quality, of which eleven articles presented 8 points (30,33,37,43,44,48,52,53,58,67,75), and thirty-six articles presented 7 points (12,22,25,26,31,(34)(35)(36)38,39,42,(45)(46)(47)(48)(49)(50)(51)(54)(55)(56)(57)(59)(60)(61)(62)(63)(64)(65)67,68,(70)(71)(72)76). Five were of low quality (77)(78)(79)(80)(81) and, consequently, were excluded. ...
Introduction: The purposes of this study were to seek for overall ratio (OR) and anterior ratio (AR) patients data in normal occlusion and Angle’s malocclusion studies, and to assess if such results support Bolton’s standards as general references. Methods: Pubmed, Medline, CENTRAL and Scholar databases were searched up to February 2018 (CRD42018088438). Gray literature was explored through OpenGray. Non-randomized clinical studies, published in English and assessing Bolton’s OR and AR in normal occlusion and Angle’s malocclusion groups (Class I, Class II, Class II division 1, Class 2 division 2, Class III) patients were included. OR and AR means and standard deviations (SD) were collected. Potential covariates (study design, publication year, country where the study was conducted, number of cases, gender, mesiodistal measurement method, and calibration method) were also extracted. The National Health Heart Lung, and Blood Institute’s Quality Assessment Tool for Observational Cohort and Cross-Sectional Studies was used to assess each included studies quality. Pairwise Random-Effects and Multilevel Bayesian Network Meta-Analyses were used to synthesize available data. Results: Fifty-two observational studies were included (8872 participants; male/females 2674/3272; 16 studies lacked gender information). For normal occlusion, global pooled estimates for OR and AR means were 91.74% (95% CI: 91.37-92.10) and 78.24% (95% CI: 77.85-78.63), respectively. We could identify on Angle’s Class III patients meaningful OR and AR mean deviations from normal occlusion (0.89, 95% credible interval [CrI], 0.66-1.12, and 0.66, 95% CrI, 0.38-0.94, respectively), while on Class I patients we found a meaningful mean deviation from normal occlusion only for OR (0.25, 95% CrI, 0.03-0.47). Concerning gender impact, male patients presented higher OR (0.30, 95% CI 0.00-0.59) and AR (0.41, 95% CI 0.00-0.83) mean values than females in Class I. Conclusions: The results show that global pooled OR and AR mean values for normal occlusion patients are slightly above Bolton’s original values. Class I, for OR mean values, and Class III, for both OR and AR, are proportionally larger than normal occlusion patients. Gender had almost no impact on teeth mesiodistal proportion.
... These frameworks give precise and solid apparatuses to getting estimations and doing examinations. Besides, they have extra advantages, for example, openness of the pictures delivered, lessening away expenses and the capacity to examine pictures utilizing advanced software 4,5) . There are generally few 3D investigations of tooth size and dental curve measurements, 3D pictures obtaining, utilizing the stereo photogrammetric strategy has incredible credibility and unwavering quality for the curve measurement, mesio-distal width of the tooth size 6) . ...
Purpose: The aim of the present study was to do an overview of the dental tooth size for various populations. Also, to evaluate the various type of measurement methods and sexual disparities. Methods: Two reviewers independently performed the selection process and the quality of studies was assessed. Studies published form January 1963 until October 2015 were identified in electronic databases: Pubmed, Scopus, Science direct, Web of Science, Medpilot and Medline using keywords. Criteria used included: observational studies, tooth size measured, Permanent dentition, tooth size investigated via plaster and digital dental models, measurement via calipers and computers software's. Results: The current overview showed the tooth size dimension and its disparities for various populations. Conclusion: The various methods to assess tooth size dimension should be carefully considered and well conducted as part of the clinical assessment of orthodontic treatment, since arch dimension could influence the diagnosis and treatment planning of orthodontist. © 2017 Japan Health Sciences University & Japan International Cultural Exchange Foundation.
... Existe concordância na literatura quanto à confiabilidade da análise da discrepância do tamanho dentário, quanto à precisão do paquímetro digital e sua correlação com a medição pelo compasso de ponta seca 6,11 . A utilização de fotocópia de modelos ortodônticos para a medição dentária não se mostra tão precisa certamente pela perda da tridimensionalidade 11,12,17,18 . Somente Tomassetti et al 6 , utilizando um sistema de medição conectado diretamente ao computador, obtiveram resultado semelhante ao método de medição do paquímetro digital, tendo como vantagens a precisão e a rapidez do software, que não incorpora erros de cálculo. ...
O objetivo deste estudo foi avaliar a aplicabilidade do método computadorizado na obtenção da análise de Bolton e compará-lo com os métodos convencionais (Paquímetro Digital e Compasso de Ponta Seca). Foram utilizados 30 pares de modelos de gesso das arcadas dentárias de pacientes oriundos do curso de especialização da Universidade Paulista – FOUNIP, escolhidos aleatoriamente e em perfeito estado. Medidas manuais foram obtidas com paquímetro digital e com compasso de ponta seca e, por meio do programa computadorizado Radiocef®. Cada paciente teve os seus dentes medidos por três vezes nos diferentes métodos em intervalos de uma semana. Os dados foram analizados pela Análise de Variância (ANOVA) à um nível de significância de 5% para se verificar a repetibilidade dos métodos e pela análise de Regressão para estudar a correlação entre os mesmos. Os métodos mais precisos foram os manuais sendo o que utiliza o Paquímetro Digital o mais preciso. Todas as Análises de Regressão foram estatisticamente significantes, ou seja, houve correlação entre os métodos. Analisando os resultados podemos notar que as melhores correlações foram obtidas entre os métodos Compasso de Ponta Seca e Paquímetro Digital. Pode-se concluir que o método mais preciso foi o Paquímetro Digital, sendo este 3 vezes mais preciso que os demais métodos.Descritores: Dentição Permanente; Modelos Dentários; Ortodontia.
... Measurement of the maxillary and mandibular teeth in all the study models was done using an electronic digital caliper which was calibrated to an accuracy of 0.01 mm. [13] The width of every tooth was measured from its mesial contact point to its distal contact point at its greatest mesiodistal dimension. The caliper was held parallel to the occlusal plane and perpendicular to the long axis of the tooth to make the measurement more accurate. ...
