• Users Online: 271
  • Home
  • Print this page
  • Email this page
Home About us Editorial board Ahead of print Current issue Search Archives Submit article Instructions Subscribe Contacts Login 


 
 Table of Contents  
ORIGINAL ARTICLE
Year : 2015  |  Volume : 49  |  Issue : 1  |  Page : 3-9

A comparison of seven mixed dentition analysis methods and to evaluate the most reliable one in Nalgonda population


1 Senior Lecturer, Department of Orthodontics and Dentofacial Orthopaedics, Kamineni Institute of Dental Sciences, Narketpally, India
2 Professor and Head, Department of Orthodontics and Dentofacial Orthopaedics, Kamineni Institute of Dental Sciences, Narketpally, India
3 Reader, Department of Orthodontics and Dentofacial Orthopaedics, Kamineni Institute of Dental Sciences, Narketpally, India
4 Department of Orthodontics and Dentofacial Orthopaedics, Kamineni Institute of Dental Sciences, Narketpally, Telangana, India

Date of Submission10-Oct-2014
Date of Acceptance01-Apr-2015
Date of Web Publication12-Jun-2015

Correspondence Address:
Vasu Murthy Sesham
Department of Orthodontics, Kamineni Institute of Dental Sciences, Sreepuram, Narketpally, Nalgonda (District) - 508 254, Telangana
India
Login to access the Email id

Source of Support: None, Conflict of Interest: None


DOI: 10.4103/0301-5742.158626

Rights and Permissions
  Abstract 

Objective: To determine the most reliable mixed dentition analysis method for Nalgonda population. Materials and Methods: This study was conducted on 60 boys and 60 girls of Nalgonda population, in the age group of 13-16 years. The mesiodistal and buccolingual dimensions of the permanent incisors, canines, premolars, and 1 st permanent molars were measured on the study models of all the subjects. Seven different mixed dentition analyses were performed which include Bachmann's, Gross and Hassund's, Trankmann et al., Camilo et al., Legovic et al., Tanaka-Johnston and Moyer's methods and were later compared. The Pearson's Correlation coefficients were calculated between the sums of the mesiodistal diameters (MDDs) of permanent canine, and premolars as measured on the study models and the predicted MDDs of the same using each of these seven methods. Results: The correlation coefficient r was highest for Moyer's mixed dentition analysis with a value of 0.957 and 0.979 in the mandibular and maxillary arch respectively for boys and 0.935 and 0.946 in the mandibular and maxillary arch respectively for girls. Conclusion: Moyer's mixed dentition analysis was found to be the most reliable method for both boys and girls of Nalgonda population of all the 7 methods compared.

Keywords: Mixed dentition analysis, model analysis, Nalgonda population


How to cite this article:
Kondapaka V, Sesham VM, Neela PK, Mamillapalli PK. A comparison of seven mixed dentition analysis methods and to evaluate the most reliable one in Nalgonda population. J Indian Orthod Soc 2015;49:3-9

How to cite this URL:
Kondapaka V, Sesham VM, Neela PK, Mamillapalli PK. A comparison of seven mixed dentition analysis methods and to evaluate the most reliable one in Nalgonda population. J Indian Orthod Soc [serial online] 2015 [cited 2019 May 19];49:3-9. Available from: http://www.jios.in/text.asp?2015/49/1/3/158626


  Introduction Top


It is believed in orthodontic circles that a large number of cases of malocclusion start during the mixed dentition stage, which spans at an interval from the 6 th year to the 12 th year of life. Many of these developing malocclusions may be reduced in severity or even eliminated entirely by timely management. [1]

Early diagnosis and successful treatment of developing malocclusions can have both short- and long-term benefits while achieving the goal of occlusal harmony, function and dental facial aesthetics. Mixed dentition space analyses form an essential part of an early orthodontic evaluation. They help to determine the amount of space available, whether in the mandibular or maxillary arch, for the accommodation of unerupted permanent teeth, usually the canines and premolars. An accurate analysis is one important criterion in determining whether the treatment plan may involve serial extraction, guidance of eruption, space maintenance, space regaining, or just periodic observation of the patient. [1]

There are four types of methods, which are commonly used for prediction of the mesiodistal diameter (MDD) of the unerupted permanent canine (C), 1 st premolar (P-1) and 2 nd premolar (P-2). They are by "Application of mean values for the MDD of C, P-1 and P-2," by "correlation or regression methods," by "correlation and radiographic methods" and by "radiographic methods." Among these four types of methods, the regression methods are the most commonly used. [2] The various regression methods that are reported include Bachmann's, Gross and Hassund's, Trankmann et al., Camilo et al., Legovic et al., Tanaka-Johnston, Moyer's method etc., Among the various regression methods, Tanaka-Johnston and Moyer's mixed dentition analyses are most broadly used. [3] Studies conducted by Dasgupta and Zahir, [4] Sholapurmath et al., [5] and Namitha et al., [6] using, Tanaka-Johnston and Moyer's methods on various Indian population showed statistically significant difference between the actual and predicted sum of MDD of permanent canine, first and second premolars.

Legovic et al., [7] established regression equations for the purpose of accurately predicting the widths of the crowns of unerupted canines and premolars on the basis of the measured MDD and vestibulo-oral diameter of the crowns of the erupted central and lateral incisors and first permanent molars (Zagreb population). Other authors (Bachmann, 1986; Gross and Hasund, l989; Trδnkmann etal., 1990; [Croatian population] [2] Camilo et al., 2007 [Brazilian population] [8] ) have used regression analysis for predicting the MDD of the unerupted canines and premolars. When Camilo et al., method was used in other studies by Tikku et al., [9] and Shah et al., [10] in Indian population, significant difference was found.

The development of these methods was based on the data derived from the population of various descents. Therefore, the accuracy of these prediction methods may be in question when applied to other population groups because it has been well established in the literature that tooth sizes vary considerably between the racial groups. [1] However, the literature survey has not reported any studies on the above-mentioned regression methods other than Tanaka-Johnston, Moyer's and Camilo et al., methods in the Indian population.

Hence, this study was an attempt to compare these seven different regression types of mixed dentition analysis methods and to determine the most reliable method for boys and girls of Nalgonda population.


  Materials and Methods Top


A total of 120 children (60 boys and 60 girls) in the age group of 13-16 years of Nalgonda population were taken for the present study.

The following selection criteria were used.

  • All the subjects in the permanent dentition
  • No active caries or restorations
  • No obvious anomalies regarding number, form, size or structure of the teeth
  • The mesiodistal and buccolingual surfaces of the crowns of all permanent teeth intact
  • Relatively well aligned arches which enable the measurement of mesiodistal widths.
The mesiodistal and buccolingual dimensions of the permanent incisors, canines, premolars, and the first permanent molars were measured on all the study models in all four quadrants as shown in [Figure 1] and [Figure 2]. The measurements were done using a calibrated digital caliper with an accuracy of 0.01 mm. All measurements were carried out twice by one author and the mean of the two values was used. The correlation coefficient between the first and the second measurements ranged from r = 0.87-0. 99. Method error (ME) assessed for the two measurements was based on the Dahlberg's formula: (d = difference between 1 st and 2 nd measurement and n = number of double measurements). The ME for the mesiodistal widths was determined to be 0.019 mm.
Figure 1: Measurement of mesiodistal diameter of individual tooth using digital Vernier caliper

Click here to view
Figure 2: Measurement of buccolingual dimension of individual tooth using digital Vernier caliper

Click here to view


The methods which are compared here are:

  • Bachmann's (1986) method: [2]
Maxilla = 0.81× (22) +0.54× (26) +0.56× (32) +6.98

Mandible = 0.71× (22) +0.39× (26) +0.86× (32) +6.96

22 = MDD of upper left lateral incisor

26 = MDD of upper left first permanent molar

32 = MDD of lower left lateral incisor

  • Gross and Hassund's (1989) method: [2]
Maxilla = 0.61× (22) +0.80× (32) +0.65× (VOD 36) +5.66

Mandible =

0.63× (22) +0.84× (32) +0.67× (VOD 36) +4.47

22 = MDD of upper left lateral incisor

32 = MDD of lower left lateral incisor

VOD 36 =

Vestibulo oral diameter of lower left first permanent molars measured on the casts

  • Trankmann et al. (1990) method: [2]
Boys: Maxilla = 0.93X + 5.50,

Mandible = 0.94X + 5.06

Girls: Maxilla = 0.99X + 4.47,

Mandible = 0.96X + 4.43

X = MDD of lateral incisor + first permanent molars

  • Camilo et al. (2007) method: [8]
Y = 0.975X for males

Y = 0.971X for females

Y = Sum of mesiodistal width of permanent canine, first and second premolars (mandibular)

X =

Sum of mesiodistal widths of mandibular first permanent molars and permanent incisors

  • Legovic et al. method: [7]


    • Girls lower jaw

      C + P1 + P2 = 0.916 (MDD 32) +0.430 (MDD 36) +0.414 (VOD 26) +6.28

    • Girls upper jaw

      C + P1 + P2 = 1.415 (MDD 32) +0.386(MDD 36) +0.398(VOD 31) − 0.725(VOD 32) +0.277 (VOD 26) +7.80

    • Boys upper jaw

      C + P1 + P2 = 1.003 (MDD 32) +0.444 (MDD 22) +0.490 (MDD 26) +0.385 (VOD 26) +3.34

    • Boys lower jaw

      C + P1 + P2 = 1.019 (MDD 32) +0.430 (MDD 36) +0.497 (VOD 32) +0.611 (MDD 22) +3.45.


(C + P1 + P2 = Sum of mesiodistal width of permanent canine, first and second premolars)

MDD = MDD

VOD = Vestibulo oral diameter

  • Tanaka-Johnston method: [11]
Predicted width of permanent canine, first premolar and second premolar (maxilla) = Sum of MDD of four mandibular incisors/2 + 11 mm.

Predicted width of permanent canine, first premolar and second premolar (mandible) = Sum of MDD of four mandibular incisors/2 + 10.5 mm (MDD)

  • Moyer's method: [12]
For the method proposed by Moyers (1973), the predicted sum of the widths of the crowns of permanent canines and premolars were taken from the relevant tables [12] taking into account the incisor measurement from the study models.

The Pearson's correlation coefficients were calculated between the sums of the MDDs of permanent canine, first and second premolar in both the arches as measured on the study models and the predicted MDDs of the same using each of seven different methods. The software used for the statistical analysis was SPSS 19 (SPSS, Chicago, Illinois, USA), and the level of significance was P < 0.01.


  Results Top


The Pearson's correlation coefficients between the mesiodistal widths of the same teeth on the right and left sides of the arch were high (girls: Maxilla = 0.994, Mandible = 0.956; boys: Maxilla = 0.995, Mandible = 0.963). The correlations are found to be higher in the maxilla than in the mandible in both girls and boys. These high correlation coefficients between the right and the left sides justify the use of the size of the teeth on either side [13] and it was therefore decided to accept the measurements on the left side of the dentition.

[Table 1] and [Table 2] show the order of reliability of the prediction methods for girls and boys. In both the arches highest correlations were found for the Moyer's mixed dentition analysis method in boys and girls and the correlations were even higher in the maxilla compared to the mandible in both the sexes.
Table 1: Correlation coefficient (r) ranked according to the reliability of the sums of the mesiodistal diameters of C, P1, and P2 crowns in girl patients


Click here to view
Table 2: Correlation coefficient (r) ranked according to the reliability of the sums of the mesiodistal diameters of C, P1, and P2 crowns in boy patients


Click here to view


[Table 3] and [Table 4] show the frequency of positive and negative differences between the measured and predicted values of the sums of the MDDs of C, P 1 and P 2 crowns in the maxilla and mandible respectively in 60 boys and 60 girls. Though Moyer's analysis showed highest correlations in both the sexes, it over predicted compared to the measured values in 104 cases out of 120 cases and under predicted in 16 cases in maxilla and it over predicted compared to the measured values in 91 cases out of 120 cases and under predicted in 29 cases in mandible.
Table 3: Frequency of positive and negative differences between the measured and predicted values of the sums of the mesiodistal diameters of C, P1 and P2 crowns in the maxillary arch in 60 boys and 60 girls


Click here to view
Table 4: Frequency of positive and negative differences between the measured and predicted values of the sums of the mesiodistal diameters of C, P1 and P2 crowns in the mandibular arch in 60 boys and 60 girls


Click here to view


[Table 5] and [Table 6] show the differences between the measured and the predicted values of the sums of the MDDs of C, P 1 and P 2 crowns in the maxilla and mandible respectively with regard to the prediction procedure.
Table 5: The differences between the measured and the predicted values of the sums of the mesiodistal diameters of C, P1 and P2 crowns in the maxillary arch


Click here to view
Table 6: The differences between the measured and the predicted values of the sums of the mesiodistal diameters of C, P1 and P2 crowns in the mandibular arch


Click here to view


The Moyer's method proved to be most reliable for both genders and for both arches, with correlations of 0.957 in mandible and 0.979 in maxilla for boys and 0.935 in mandible and 0.946 in maxilla for girls. The predicted values were higher than the measured values in 89.16% of cases in maxilla and 75.83% of cases in mandible. The differences between the measured and predicted values in maxilla ranged between − 2.00 to + 3.00 and in mandible it is − 1.50 to + 2.50.

The correlation coefficients between the predicted and measured dimensions using the method of Tanaka-Johnston were 0.338 in maxilla and 0.477 in mandible for girls and 0.38 in maxilla and 0.57 in mandible for boys. The predicted values were higher than the measured values in 30.8% of cases in maxilla and 0.11% of cases in mandible. Tanaka-Johnston method showed least correlations in maxilla for males and in mandible for females. The differences between the measured and predicted values in maxilla ranged between −3.00 to +3.00 and in mandible it is −3.00 to +1.50.

The correlation coefficients between the Gross and Hassund method measured values were 0.543 in maxilla and 0.616 in mandible for girls and 0.446 in maxilla and 0.594 in mandible for boys. In 56.6% (maxilla) and 41.66% (mandible) of cases the predicted values were higher than those measured. The differences between the measured and predicted values in maxilla ranged between −2.50 to +3.00 and in mandible it is −3.00 to +2.50. The Gross and Hassund regression method showed relatively high correlation coefficients in girls than in boys.

In the maxilla, the correlation coefficients between the measured dimensions and those predicted when applying Bachmann's method were 0.555 in maxilla and 0.611 in mandible for girls and 0.502 in maxilla and 0.491 in mandible for boys. This method showed relatively high correlation coefficients in girls as compared to boys. The predicted values were higher than the measured values in 63.33% of cases in maxilla and 40% of cases in mandible. The differences between the measured and the predicted values in maxilla ranged between −2.00 to +3.00 and in mandible from −3.00 to +2.50. Bachmann's method showed least correlations among all the methods in mandible for boys.

Using the method described by Trankmann et al., the correlations between predicted and measured dimensions were as follows: For girls: Maxilla 0.528 and mandible 0.521, and for boys: Maxilla 0.509 and mandible 0.559. The predicted values were higher than measured values in the maxilla in 61.66% of cases and in the mandible in 43.33% of cases. The differences between the measured and the predicted values in maxilla ranged between −2.00 to +3.00 and in mandible from −2.50 to +3.00

The correlation coefficients between predicted and measured dimensions using the method of Legovic et al., were for girls: Maxilla 0.270 and mandible 0.546, and for boys: Maxilla 0.500 and mandible 0.5410. The predicted values were lower than measured values in the maxilla in 50.83% of cases and in the mandible in 75% of cases. The differences between the measured and the predicted values in maxilla ranged between −3.00 to +3.00 and in mandible from −3.00 to +3.00. Legovic method showed least correlations among all the methods in maxilla for girls.

Using the method described by Camilo et al., the correlations between predicted and measured dimensions in the mandible were as follows: For girls: 0.496 and for boys: 0.608. The predicted values were lower than measured values in the mandible in 90.83% of cases. The differences between the measured and the predicted values in mandible ranged from − 3.00 to + 2.00.


  Discussion Top


The size of the teeth is related to genetics (e.g. gender and ethnicity) and the environment. Racial and gender-specific mixed dentition space analyses require revision or validation once every generation (approximately 30 years) because of changing trends in malocclusion and tooth size. The accurate width of an unerupted tooth is important for correct diagnosis of a case. Neither overestimation nor underestimation of width should be done for an accurate treatment plan. [14]

The Tanaka-Johnston method of space analysis is considered by many authors as the most clinically useful of all other analysis techniques as it requires no radiographs or tables to predict the size of unerupted teeth. [15] Some researchers reported an overestimation of the size of unerupted canines and premolars when using the Tanaka-Johnston prediction equations, [1],[16] and a few others have reported an underestimation of unerupted permanent teeth. [1] In the present study, the Tanaka-Johnston analysis underestimated in 69.16% of cases in maxilla and in 88.33% of cases in mandible. It showed least correlations in maxilla for boys and in mandible for girls. The results of this study were comparable with the findings of the investigations done in Indian population by Dasgupta and Zahir, [4] and Sholapurmath et al. [5]

Moyer's mixed dentition analysis is based on the correlation of tooth size between the sum of the lower permanent incisors and unerupted canines and premolars. Moyer's recommended using the 75 th percentile level of probability in his tables to protect on the crowded side. [12] It was, therefore, concluded that because of the differences in mesiodistal widths of mandibular permanent incisors, canines and premolars among different ethnic groups, data collected from one ethnic group for the purpose of predicting the size of unerupted permanent teeth might not be applicable to another. [16] In the present study, Moyer's method at 75 th percentile of probability proved to be the most reliable prediction method because of highest correlations with the measured values but, it over-predicted in 89.16% of cases in maxilla and 75.83% of cases in mandible. The present findings were consistent with the results of studies reported by Manjula et al., [17] conducted in Nalgonda population and various other studies conducted in Indian population by Chandna et al., [18] Abu Alhaija and Qudeimat [16] and Namitha et al., [6] Many authors have reported over prediction of values when this method is used in different other populations. [2]

Camilo et al., method in the present study showed low correlations in the mandible for girls and for boys' highest correlations after the Moyer's method. When this method was used on Indian population by Tikku et al., [9] and Shah et al., [10] significant difference was found, thereby confirming racial variation.

Bachmann method, Gross and Hasssund method and Trankmann et al. method which were shown to be reliable in a study conducted by Alen Boboc and Jos Dibbetts, [19] showed only average correlations in the present study. The probable reason for this difference could be a different population that was selected.

Bachmann method, Gross and Hasssund method and Trankmann et al. method showed more correlation in a study conducted by Legovic et al., [2] when compared to thepresent study. This could be because of the different population selected for their study. Legovic et al. method overall showed average correlations in boys and girls in the present study.

In the present study, the correlations for Moyer's method were higher in the maxilla compared to the mandible in both the sexes. In a study conducted in Indian population by Durgekar and Naik, [14] males show the highest r2 ( 0.56) value for the maxillary buccal segment. This shows that the prediction equation of the maxillary arch for male subjects is more precise. Female subjects have the lowest r2 ( 0.25) value for the maxillary arch, which implies that the prediction equation is least precise for the maxillary arch in female subjects. In a similar study by Godfrey et al., [20] they obtained lower r2 values (0.29 for maxillary teeth and 0.34 for mandibular teeth in males; 0.39 for maxillary teeth and 0.42 for the mandibular arch in females). In another similar study conducted on subjects in Southern Thailand, r2 values were 0.46 and 0.47 for maxillary and mandibular teeth, respectively. [21] The differences in the sets of r2 of these studies for maxillary and mandibular arches might be attributable to the effects of different sample sizes and ethnic mixes.


  Conclusion Top


  • The Moyer's mixed dentition analysis method was found to be the most reliable method amongst the methods compared in children of Nalgonda population among all the methods
  • Moyer's analysis showed highest correlations in both boys and girls and in both maxilla and mandible
  • The correlations for Moyer's method were higher in the maxilla compared to the mandible in both the sexes.


Short comings of the present study

  • The sample size in the present study could have been larger
  • Combined boys and girls correlation co-efficient could have been derived for maxillary and mandibular arches.
Scope for future studies

  • A three dimensional measuring machine can be used to measure the mesiodistal tooth dimension
  • Digital models can be created and measurements and calculations can be carried out using software, which reduces the measurement errors
  • Using the same sample a regression equation to predict the mesiodistal width of permanent canine, first and second premolars can be arrived at.


 
  References Top

1.
Lee-Chan S, Jacobson BN, Chwa KH, Jacobson RS. Mixed dentition analysis for Asian-Americans. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop 1998;113:293-9.  Back to cited text no. 1
    
2.
Legovic M, Novosel A, Skrinjaric T, Legovic A, Mady B, Ivancic N. A comparison of methods for predicting the size of unerupted permanent canines and premolars. Eur J Orthod 2006;28:485-90.  Back to cited text no. 2
    
3.
Bernabé E, Flores-Mir C. Are the lower incisors the best predictors for the unerupted canine and premolars sums? an analysis of a Peruvian sample. Angle Orthod 2005;75:202-7.  Back to cited text no. 3
    
4.
Dasgupta B, Zahir S. Comparison of two non-radiographic techniques of mixed dentition space analysis and evaluation of their reliability for Bengali population. Contemp Clin Dent 2012;3:S146-50.  Back to cited text no. 4
[PUBMED]  Medknow Journal  
5.
Sholapurmath SM, Benni DB, Mandroli P. Applicability of two mixed dentition analysis in children of Jangam community of Belgaum city. World J Dent 2012;3:324-9.  Back to cited text no. 5
    
6.
Namitha R, Rami Reddy MS, Biswas P, Balakrishna S, Ushass P. Mixed dentition space analysis in Kondava population: A Comparison of two methods. J Clin Diagn Res 2014;8:1-6.  Back to cited text no. 6
    
7.
Legovic M, Novosel A, Legovic A. Regression equations for determining mesiodistal crown diameters of canines and premolars. Angle Orthod 2003;73:314-8.  Back to cited text no. 7
    
8.
Melgaço CA, de Sousa Araújo MT, de Oliveira Ruellas AC. Mandibular permanent first molar and incisor width as predictor of mandibular canine and premolar width. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop 2007;132:340-5.  Back to cited text no. 8
    
9.
Tikku T, Khanna R, Sachan K, Agarwal A, Srivastava K, Yadav P. A new proposed regression equation for mixed dentition analysis using the sum of permanent mandibular four incisors and first molar as a predictor of width of unerupted canine and premolars in a sample of North Indian population. J Orthod Sci 2013;2:124-9.  Back to cited text no. 9
    
10.
Shah S, Bhaskar V, Venkataraghvan K, Choudhary P, Mahadevan G, Trivedi K. 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.  Back to cited text no. 10
[PUBMED]  Medknow Journal  
11.
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.  Back to cited text no. 11
    
12.
Moyers RE. Handbook of Orthodontics for the Student and General Practioner. Chicago: Yearbook Medical Publishers Inc.; 1973. p. 369-79.  Back to cited text no. 12
    
13.
Staley RN, Shelly TH, Martin JF. Prediction of lower canine and premolar widths in the mixed dentition. Am J Orthod 1979;76:300-9.  Back to cited text no. 13
    
14.
Durgekar SG, Naik V. Evaluation of Moyers mixed dentition analysis in school children. Indian J Dent Res 2009;20:26-30.  Back to cited text no. 14
[PUBMED]  Medknow Journal  
15.
Casamassimo PS, Christensen JR, Fields HW. Examination, diagnosis and treatment planning. In: Pediatric Dentistry: Infancy through Adolescence. 4 th ed. Missouri: Elsevier Saunders; 2005. p. 497-8.  Back to cited text no. 15
    
16.
Abu Alhaija ES, Qudeimat MA. Mixed dentition space analysis in a Jordanian population: Comparison of two methods. Int J Paediatr Dent 2006;16:104-10.  Back to cited text no. 16
    
17.
Manjula M, Rani ST, David SR, Reddy ER, Sreelakshmi N, Rajesh A. Applicability of tooth size predictions in the mixed dentition space analysis in Nalgonda population. J Dr. NTR Univ Health Sci 2013;2:269-74.  Back to cited text no. 17
    
18.
Chandna A, Gupta A, Pradhan KL, Gupta R. Prediction of the size of unerupted canines and premolars in a North Indian population-An in vitro study. J Indian Dent Assoc 2011;5:329-33.  Back to cited text no. 18
    
19.
Boboc A, Dibbets J. Prediction of the mesiodistal width of unerupted permanent canines and premolars: A statistical approach. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop 2010;137:503-7.  Back to cited text no. 19
    
20.
Jaroontham J, Godfrey K. Mixed dentition space analysis in a Thai population. Eur J Orthod 2000;22:127-34.  Back to cited text no. 20
    
21.
Supanee S, Naratip J, Hinkaew C. Accuracy of different methods for predicting size of unerutped canine and premolars. J Dent Assoc Thail 1995;45:189-92.  Back to cited text no. 21
    


    Figures

  [Figure 1], [Figure 2]
 
 
    Tables

  [Table 1], [Table 2], [Table 3], [Table 4], [Table 5], [Table 6]



 

Top
 
 
  Search
 
Similar in PUBMED
   Search Pubmed for
   Search in Google Scholar for
 Related articles
Access Statistics
Email Alert *
Add to My List *
* Registration required (free)

 
  In this article
Abstract
Introduction
Materials and Me...
Results
Discussion
Conclusion
References
Article Figures
Article Tables

 Article Access Statistics
    Viewed4741    
    Printed124    
    Emailed2    
    PDF Downloaded262    
    Comments [Add]    

Recommend this journal


[TAG2]
[TAG3]
[TAG4]