Evaluation of two methods for mixed dentition analysis using the method error
The most commonly used tests to assess the mesiodistal width of the unerupted permanent canines and premolars are divided in two groups: those performed directly on plaster models, using mathematical equations that can generate tables, and those using radiographs. Aim: In order to determine the reliability between two of these methodologically different method, this study evaluated the systematic and random errors of the method proposed by Tanaka and Johnston, which is based on the sum of mandibular permanent incisors, and the Huckaba method, which uses radiographs. Methods: In a random sample of 28 plaster models of mandibular dental arches belonging to individuals of both genders, aged six to eleven years old, a single investigator performed the measurement of required space, according to the two methods evaluated. After 15 days, the measurements were repeated, and each of them was performed twice in sequence to calculate the repeatability and reproducibility conditions, and the systematic and random errors for each method. Results: The random error of the method proposed by Huckaba was larger in terms of reproducibility (1.53 mm) and repeatability (0.57 mm) compared with the analysis proposed by Tanaka and Johnston (0.20 mm and 0.12 mm, respectively). Conclusions: The method proposed by Huckaba was proved to be inadequate in relation to reproducibility, with respect to the random error, and should be used with caution to measure the required space in the mandibular arch.
2. Bernabé E, Biostat C, Flores-Mir C, Orth C. Are the lower incisors the best predictors for unerupted canine and premolars sums? An analysis of a Peruvian sample. Angle Orthod. 2005; 75: 202-7.
3. Oliveira MV, Pithon MM, Ruellas ACO. Comparative evaluation of three methods for the calculation of request space in the mixed dentition analysis. J Dent Sci. 2007; 22: 148-53.
4. Rubin RL, Baccetti T, McNamara Jr. A. Mandibular second molar eruption difficulties related to the maintenance of arch perimeter in the mixed dentition. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop. 2012; 141: 146-52.
5. Melgaço CA, Araújo MTS, Ruellas ACO. Mandibular permanent first molar and incisor width as predictor of mandibular canine and premolar width. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop. 2007; 132: 340-5.
6. Paranhos LR, Andrews WA, Jóias RP, Bérzin F, Daruge Júnior E, Triviño T. Dental arch morphology in normal occlusions. Braz J Oral Sci. 2011; 10: 65-8
7. Zilberman O, Huggare JAV, Parikakis KA. Evaluation of the validity of tooth size and arch width measurements using conventional and three dimensional virtual orthodontic models. Angle Orthod. 2003, 73: 301-6.
8. Tome W, Ohyama Y, Yagi M, Takada K. Demonstration of a sex difference in the predictability of widths of unerupted permanent canines and premolars in a Japanese population. Angle Orthod. 2011; 81: 938-44.
9. Huckaba GW. Arch size analysis and tooth size prediction. Dent Clin North Am. 1964: 11: 431-40.
10. 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.
11. Burhan AS, Nawaya FR. Prediction of unerupted canines and premolars in a Syrian sample. Prog in Orthod. 2014; 15: 4. 12. Ritshel R, Bechtold TE, Berneburg M. Effect of cephalograms on decisions for early orthodontic treatment. Angle Orthod. 2013; 83: 1059-65.
13. Houston WJB. The analysis of errors in orthodontic measurements. Am J Orthod. 1983; 83: 382-90.
14. Dahlberg G. Statistical methods for medical and biological students. New York: Interscience; 1940.
15. Pandis N, Polychronopoulou A, Eliades T. Sample size estimation: an overview with applications to orthodontic clinical trial designs. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop. 2011; 140: e141-6.
16. Brito FC, Nacif VC, Melgaço CA. Mandibular permanent first molars and incisors as predictors of mandibular permanent canine and premolar widths: applicability and consistency of the method. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop. 2014; 145: 393-8.
17. Dasgupta B, Zahir S. Comparison of two non-radiographic techniques of mixed dentition space analysis and their evaluation of their reliability for Bengali population. Contemp Clin Dent. 2012; 3: 146-50.
18. Legovic M, Novosel A, Scrinjaric 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.
19. Miyamura ZY, Tubel CAM, Ciruffo PAD, Paludo AH. Prediction of mesiodistal diameter of permanent canines and premolars unerupted. Evaluation of methods of Moyers and Tanaka & Johnston. Rev Gaucha Orthodontol. 2006; 54: 52-7.
20. Philip NI, Prabhakar M, Arora D, Chopra S. Applicability of the Moyers mixed dentition probability tables and new prediction aids for a contemporary population in India. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop. 2010; 138: 339-45.
21. Albuquerque HR Jr, Santos-Pinto A, Santos-Pinto LAM. Precisão de medidas cefalométricas: validade de métodos de ensaio. Dental Press J Orthod. 2002; 7: 57- 62.
22. Machado LA, Vilella OV, Agostinho LMAG. Evaluation of two techniques to measure the available space in the mandibular dental arch using the method error. Rev Odonto Cienc. 2012; 27: 228-32.
23. Mendes AJD, Santos-Pinto A. Algumas diretrizes estatísticas para avaliação do erro do método na mensuração de variável quantitativa. Rev Dental Press Ortod Ortop Facial. 2007; 12: 78-83.
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.
- All content of the journal, except where identified, is licensed under a Creative Commons attribution-type BY. The online journal is free and open access.