Evaluation of proximal enamel thickness and crown measurements in maxillary first premolars

  • Leni Okamoto Munhoz
  • Flávio Vellini-Ferreira
  • Flávio Augusto Cotrim-Ferreira
  • Rívea Inês Ferreira

Abstract

Estimating enamel thickness and planning the resultant optimal morphology of premolars are substantial steps before interproximal stripping. Aim: To analyze proximal enamel thickness and crown measurements in maxillary premolars. Methods: The mesiodistal, buccolingual and cervico-occlusal measurements of 40 human maxillary first premolars (20 right, 20 left) were registered with a digital caliper. The teeth were embedded in acrylic resin and sectioned mesiodistally at the level of the contact areas to obtain 1 mm-thick central sections. Enamel thickness on the proximal surfaces was measured using a perfilometer. Measurements were compared by the Student’s t-test (α = 0.05). Results: The mean enamel thickness on the mesial surface was 1.22 mm for the right (± 0.17) and left (± 0.18) sides. On the distal surface, the corresponding values were 1.28 mm (± 0.19) on the right side and 1.39 mm (± 0.17) on the left side. Mean values, in millimeters, for the mesiodistal, buccolingual and cervico-occlusal measurements on both sides ranged from 7.03 (± 0.43) to 7.07 (± 0.48), 9.59 (± 0.48) to 9.65 (± 0.58) and 8.65 (± 0.66) to 8.85 (± 0.65), respectively. There were no significant differences between right and left teeth. However, enamel thickness was significantly greater (p<0.05) on the distal surface. Conclusions: In maxillary first premolars, considering the greater thickness of distal enamel, interproximal stripping during orthodontic treatment may be more pronounced on this surface. The greatest mean value was observed for the buccolingual crown measurement, followed by the cervicoocclusal and mesiodistal dimensions.

References

1. Zachrisson BU, Minster L, Ogaard B, Birkhed D. Dental health assessed after interproximal enamel reduction: caries risk in posterior teeth. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop. 2011; 139: 90-8.
2. Zachrisson BU, Mjör IA. Remodeling of teeth by grinding. Am J Orthod. 1975; 68: 545-53.
3. Ballard ML. Asymmetry in tooth size: a factor in the etiology, diagnosis and treatment of malocclusion. Angle Orthod. 1944; 14: 67-70.
4. Neff CW. Tailored occlusion with the anterior coefficient. Am J Orthod. 1949; 35: 309-13.
5. Peck H, Peck S. An index for assessing tooth shape deviations as applied to the mandibular incisors. Am J Orthod. 1972; 61: 384-401.
6. Germeç D, Taner TU. Effects of extraction and nonextraction therapy with air-rotor stripping on facial esthetics in postadolescent borderline patients. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop. 2008; 133: 539-49.
7. Rossouw PE, Tortorella A. Enamel reduction procedures in orthodontic treatment. J Can Dent Assoc. 2003; 69: 378-83.
8. Zachrisson BU, Nyoygaard L, Mobarak K. Dental health assessed more than 10 years after interproximal enamel reduction of mandibular anterior teeth. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop. 2007; 131: 162-9.
9. Macha AC, Vellini-Ferreira F, Scavone-Junior H, Ferreira RI. Mesiodistal width and proximal enamel thickness of maxillary first bicuspids. Braz Oral Res. 2010; 24: 58-63.
10. Stroud JL, Buschang PH, Goaz PW. Sexual dimorphism in mesiodistal dentin and enamel thickness. Dentomaxillofac Radiol.1994; 23: 169-71.
11. Demange C, François B. Measuring and charting interproximal enamel removal. J Clin Orthod. 1990; 24: 408-12.
12. Jarjoura K, Gagnon G, Nieberg L. Caries risk after interproximal enamel reduction. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop. 2006; 130: 26-30.
13. Fernandes SA, Vellini-Ferreira F, Scavone-Junior H, Ferreira RI. Crown dimensions and proximal enamel thickness of mandibular second bicuspids. Braz Oral Res. 2011; 25: 324-30.
14. Stroud JL, English J, Buschang PH. Enamel thickness of the posterior dentition: its implications for nonextraction treatment. Angle Orthod. 1998; 68: 141-6.
15. Sheridan JJ. Air rotor stripping. J Clin Orthod. 1985; 19: 43-59. 16. Tuverson DL. Anterior interocclusal relations. Parts I and II. Am J Orthod. 1980; 78: 361-93.
17. Doris JM, Bernard BW, Kuftinec MM, Stom D. A biometric study of tooth size and dental crowding. Am J Orthod. 1981; 79: 326-36.
18. Harris AF, Hicks JD. A radiographic assessment of enamel thickness in human maxillary incisors. Arch Oral Biol. 1998; 43: 825-31.
19. Spoor CF, Zonneveld FW, Macho GA. Linear measurements of cortical bone and dental enamel by computed tomography: applications and problems. Am J Phys Anthropol. 1993; 91: 469-84.
20. Begg PR. Stone age man’s dentition. Am J Orthod. 1954; 40: 298-312. 21. Molnar S, Gantt DG. Functional implications of primate enamel thickness. Am J Phys Anthropol. 1977; 46: 447-54.
22. Macho GA, Berner ME. Enamel thickness of human maxillary molars reconsidered. Am J Phys Anthropol. 1993; 92: 189-200.
23. Ghose LJ, Baghdady VS. Analysis of the Iraqi dentition: mesiodistal crown diameters of permanent teeth. J Dent Res. 1979; 58: 1047-54.
24. Bishara SE, Jakobsen JR, Abdallah EM, Fernandez Garcia A. Comparisons of mesiodistal and buccolingual crown dimensions of the permanent teeth in three populations from Egypt, Mexico, and the United States. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop. 1989; 96: 416-22.
25. Chudasama D, Sheridan JJ. Guidelines for contemporary air-rotor stripping. J Clin Orthod. 2007; 41: 315-20.
Published
2016-12-12
How to Cite
MUNHOZ, Leni Okamoto et al. Evaluation of proximal enamel thickness and crown measurements in maxillary first premolars. Brazilian Journal of Oral Sciences, [S.l.], p. 30-35, dec. 2016. ISSN 1677-3225. Available at: <https://www.fop.unicamp.br/bjos/index.php/bjos/article/view/514>. Date accessed: 16 july 2019.
Section
Original Research

Most read articles by the same author(s)