• Users Online: 166
  • 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 : 2017  |  Volume : 9  |  Issue : 4  |  Page : 225-232

Applicability of bolton's analysis to a South Telangana population


Department of Orthodontics, Mamata Dental College, Khammam, Telangana, India

Date of Web Publication1-Dec-2017

Correspondence Address:
T Saritha
Department of Orthodontics, Mamata Dental College, Giriprasad Nagar, Khammam, Telangana
India
Login to access the Email id

Source of Support: None, Conflict of Interest: None


DOI: 10.4103/IJDS.IJDS_95_17

Get Permissions

  Abstract 

Aim: The aim of the study was to assess the anterior and overall tooth size discrepancies in different malocclusions and evaluate its effect on gender in a sample of South Telangana (Khammam) population and to compare it with Bolton standards. Materials and Methods: The study sample consisted of 311 pretreatment study casts, which were selected from records of orthodontic patients, who were residents of Khammam, South Telangana. The sample was divided into three groups based on Angle Class I, II, and III malocclusions and further subdivided into male and female groups. The mesiodistal diameters of the teeth were measured using digital calipers, and the Bolton's analysis was carried out. Statistical Analysis Used: Intraclass correlation coefficient was assessed using Dahlberg's formula. ANOVA and post hoc least significant difference test were used. Results: The mean anterior and overall ratios were 79.17 ± 2.91 and 92.3 ± 1.88, respectively. A total of 64% and 45% of the study population had tooth size discrepancies in the anterior and overall ratios when assessed for >±1 standard deviation (SD). When the sample was assessed for discrepancies >±2 SD, it was observed that a total of 33.8% and 5.5% patients had anterior and overall tooth size discrepancies. Conclusions: With significant differences being observed between Bolton's and the present study values, the need for population standards gains importance for better results at the end of orthodontic treatment.

Keywords: Bolton ratio, South Telangana (Khammam) population, tooth size discrepancy


How to cite this article:
Saritha T, Sunitha C, Kumar P K, Naveen R. Applicability of bolton's analysis to a South Telangana population. Indian J Dent Sci 2017;9:225-32

How to cite this URL:
Saritha T, Sunitha C, Kumar P K, Naveen R. Applicability of bolton's analysis to a South Telangana population. Indian J Dent Sci [serial online] 2017 [cited 2017 Dec 15];9:225-32. Available from: http://www.ijds.in/text.asp?2017/9/4/225/219637


  Introduction Top


Comprehensive orthodontic treatment aims at achieving optimal occlusion with ideal overjet and overbite. An intermaxillary tooth size discrepancy is one of the many factors that jeopardize an excellent orthodontic treatment result. A tooth size discrepancy is a disproportion between the sizes of individual teeth. Of the different phases of orthodontic treatment, “finishing phase” is considered to be very difficult because of tooth size imbalances that could have been detected and considered during initial diagnosis and treatment planning. The clinician should be familiar with such discrepancies in tooth size at the initial diagnosis and treatment planning stages if excellence in orthodontic finishing is to be achieved.

Several investigators have deemphasized the role of genetics in the determination of tooth size and have concluded that the influence on variations in tooth size is multifactorial, with the environment playing an important role. Significant gender and ethnic differences in tooth size between males and females have also been reported in many studies. In 1949, Neff [1] found that the ratio of anterior teeth size is mathematically related to overbite and proposed the “anterior coefficient.” Lundstrom [2] in 1955 gave “the anterior index” after studying the ratio between maxillary and mandibular anterior teeth. Gilpatric [3] in 1923 found that when the sum of the mesiodistal widths of all maxillary teeth exceeds that of the mandibular teeth by 8–12 mm, and the greater this value, greater was the overbite. Bolton [4],[5] compared the sums of maxillary and mandibular mesiodistal tooth size and determined the ideal anterior and overall tooth size ratio. During diagnosis and planning, a quick analysis of Bolton's ratios will give the clinician a clue to determine the need for addition or reduction of tooth material.

Neff,[1] Lundstrom,[2] Ballard,[6] and others have given several methods to determine interarch tooth size discrepancy. Of all these methods, Bolton's [4],[5] analysis has found wide usage and acceptance because of its simplicity and clinical reliability. Bolton developed his anterior and overall ratios after evaluating 55 cases with “excellent” occlusion. After considering tooth sizes from one first molar to the other first molar and from one canine to the other canine in the maxillary and mandibular arches, he established a value of 77.2% and 91.3% for the anterior and overall ratios, respectively. He concluded that it would be very difficult to obtain an excellent occlusion in the finishing phase of treatment without a correct mesiodistal tooth size ratio, and McLaughlin and Bennett [7] added the absence of interarch tooth size discrepancies as the “seventh key” to the Andrews six keys of normal occlusion because of its importance.

Interarch tooth size relationships differ between populations because differences in tooth sizes are not systematic. Population and gender differences in maxillary tooth size may not be the same as the differences in mandibular tooth size; hence, different interarch relations might be expected. Sharma R, Lavelle et al.,[8] Smith et al.,[9] Santoro et al.,[10] Bernabé et al.,[11] Paredes et al.,[12] and several others from their studies reported that tooth size discrepancies vary with different populations. Till recently, no study has been carried out on Khammam (South Telangana) population to measure the interarch tooth material discrepancies between different malocclusion groups and its relationship to gender. Hence, the aim of this study is to assess the overall and anterior tooth size discrepancies in different malocclusions and evaluate its effect on gender in a sample of Khammam (South Telangana) population reporting for orthodontic treatment and to compare it with Bolton standards.


  Materials and Methods Top


The pretreatment casts were selected from records of the patients attending the Department of Orthodontics, Mamata Dental College, Khammam District, Telangana state. A total of 311 patients were randomly chosen after analyzing the pretreatment study models of 510 patients who reported to the department during 2013–2015. The mean age group of the selected sample was 14–30 years which was chosen to avoid age-related changes such as attrition and abrasion. The diagnosis was based on bilateral molar relationship and an ANB angle between 0° and 4° for Class I; ANB angle > 4° for Class II, and <0° for Class III. The sample was thus divided into three groups, namely, Class I, Class II, and Class III and the whole sample was further subdivided into male and female groups.

The patients were included based on the following inclusion criteria:

  • Presence of all permanent teeth from the first molar to the first molar in both arches in both arches
  • Ancestors from at least one previous generation residing in Khammam district
  • Absence of caries and restorations which will alter tooth size measurement
  • Good quality study models
  • Fully erupted permanent dentition
  • Absence of individual tooth anomalies which could alter the shape of the teeth.


Patients were excluded from the study when the following conditions were present:

  • Presence of dental anomalies such as supernumerary teeth and mesiodens
  • Previous history of orthodontic treatment
  • Presence of dental prosthesis, crowns, and composite restorations
  • Presence of attrition and abrasion
  • Presence of congenitally missing or impacted teeth.


After scrutinizing the samples based on inclusion and exclusion criteria, the final sample consisted of 311 models with 167 patients having a Class I, 102 with Class II, and 42 with Class III malocclusion. Ethnicity of the patient was based on their response. 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. In the posterior teeth, measurement was done from the occlusal view, and in the anterior, facial view was used to maximize mesiodistal width of each tooth [Figure 1]. Everyday 5–10 models were assessed to avoid effect of visual exhaustion. All the measurements were done by a single examiner after the teeth sizes were recorded, the anterior and overall ratios were calculated for each sample using the following formula as proposed by Bolton.
Figure 1: Measurement with digital caliper

Click here to view






To test intraoperator reliability, ten models from each group were randomly assessed by the same examiner after 1 month. The first and the second measurements were compared statistically to evaluate intraoperator reliability using Dahlberg's formula and intraclass correlation coefficient which showed good intraobserver reliability [Table 1].
Table 1: Intraobserver reliability

Click here to view



  Results Top


The mean anterior ratio for all the malocclusion groups is shown in [Table 2]. The anterior ratio was found to be 79.17 ± 2.91 and was found to be statistically significant when compared to the Bolton's norm of 77.2 ± 1.65 (P < 0.001) [Graph 1]. [Table 3] reveals that when the anterior ratio was compared between genders, no significant differences were found (P = 0.964).
Table 2: Comparison of mean anterior ratio between study population and standard Bolton's ratio

Click here to view

Table 3: Comparison of mean anterior ratio between genders

Click here to view


Mean anterior ratio for the individual malocclusion groups is tabulated in [Table 4]. The mean anterior ratio for Class I malocclusion group was found to be 79.368; for Class II, it was 78.642, and for Class III, it was 79.72. When the ratios were compared between the different malocclusion groups, statistically significant differences were found when Class I was compared with Class II (P = 0.046) and Class II with Class III (P = 0.046). The mean anterior ratio was highest in the Class III group. Comparison between gender and the different malocclusion groups for the anterior ratio revealed no statistically significant differences [Table 5].
Table 4: Comparison of mean anterior ratio between different malocclusion groups

Click here to view
Table 5: Comparison of mean anterior ratio between malocclusion groups and genders

Click here to view


The mean overall ratio for the study population is shown in [Table 6]. The value was found to be 92.3 ± 1.88. Comparison of this mean value with the Bolton's standard of 91.3 ± 1.91 revealed statistically significant differences (P < 0.001) [Graph 1]. However, comparison between genders for the overall ratio revealed no significant differences [Table 7] (P = 0.949). Overall ratio for the individual malocclusion groups is presented in [Table 8]. The mean overall ratio for Class I malocclusion was 92.38 ± 1.86; 92.30 ± 1.99 in Class II, and 92.97 ± 1.55 in Class III malocclusion. Comparison between the three malocclusion groups and between genders revealed no statistically significant differences [Table 9].
Table 6: Comparison of mean overall ratio between study population and standard Bolton's ratio

Click here to view
Table 7: Comparison of mean overall ratio between genders

Click here to view
Table 8: Comparison of mean overall ratio between different malocclusion groups

Click here to view
Table 9: Comparison of mean overall ratio between malocclusion groups and genders

Click here to view


The distribution of patients with a significant discrepancy in anterior and overall ratio exceeding 1 standard deviation (SD) is tabulated in [Table 10]. A total of 64% of patients in the study population had discrepancies in the anterior ratio and 45.30% in the overall ratio exceeding 1 SD [Graph 2] and [Graph 3]. The highest discrepancy for anterior and overall ratio exceeding 1 SD was found in Class III males. When the study population was assessed for discrepancy exceeding 2 SD [Table 11], a total of 33.8% of the patients had a discrepancy in the anterior ratio and 5.5% in the overall ratio [Graph 2] and [Graph 3]. The greatest discrepancy for the anterior and overall ratio exceeding 2 SD was found in Class I males.

Table 10: Frequency and distribution of tooth size discrepancies exceeding 1 standard deviation

Click here to view
Table 11: Frequency and distribution of tooth size discrepancies exceeding 2 standard deviation

Click here to view



  Discussion Top


Ideal tooth proportions play an important role in achieving good occlusion at the end of orthodontic treatment. Ideal tooth proportion was studied and reported by Bolton in 1958 who assessed the relationship of maxillary and mandibular dentition and proposed two indices: the anterior ratio and the overall ratio based on a study conducted on 55 American patients with excellent occlusion. Bolton's analysis, however, provides no information with regard to gender, ethnicity, and malocclusion type. Lavelle et al.,[8] Smith et al.,[9] Santoro et al.,[10] Bernabé et al.,[11] Paredes et al.,[12] Endo et al.,[14] Ta et al.,[15] and several others from their studies reported that tooth size discrepancies vary with different populations and hence population-specific standards are important to achieve optimal orthodontic results.

In the present study, an analysis of tooth size discrepancies was carried out to assess the extent of discrepancy from the original Bolton's norms, its relationship to gender, and to different malocclusion groups in a sample of South Telangana, India. A total of 311 patients were included in the study who presented with different malocclusion types. The mean anterior ratio was found to be 79.17 which was significantly different from that proposed by Bolton. This value was found to be in close range with ratios from other Indian studies such as those carried out by Jhala et al.,[16] Jindal and Bunger,[17] Saini and Moirangthem,[18] Kumar et al.,[19] Murmu et al.,[20] and several other researchers [Table 12]. Studies carried out by investigators on other ethnic populations have also reported values in a close range and these include studies by Smith et al.,[9] Fattahi et al.,[21],[22],[23],[24],[25],[26],[27],[28],[29],[30] Baidas and Hashim,[31] Alkofide and Hashim,[32] and Nourallah et al.[33] [Table 13].
Table 12: Distribution of discrepancies among Indian populations

Click here to view
Table 13: Distribution of discrepancies in other populations

Click here to view


The mean overall ratio was found to be 92.43 which was also significantly different from the ratio proposed by Bolton. Jindal and Bunger,[17] Reddy et al.,[24] Subbarao et al.,[26] Anil and Monika,[21] and several others [Table 12] have reported similar findings in their studies on Indian populations. Studies on other ethnic populations conducted by Smith et al.,[9] Baidas and Hashim,[31] Alkofide and Hashim,[32] Nourallah et al.,[33] Al-Omari et al.[34],[35] [Table 13] have reported values close to the values of the present study. The present mean overall ratio of 92.43 was similar to the finding in a Himachali ethnic population [21] with the overall ratio 92.02.

When tooth size was related to gender, both the anterior and the overall ratio revealed no significant differences suggesting that no sexual dimorphism existed in the present study population. Similar findings were reported by Araujo and Souki,[36],[37],[38],[39],[40],[41],[42],[43] Akyalçin et al.,[44] Sameshima,[45] Nie and Lin,[46] Johe et al.,[47] and several other investigators. Between the different groups, Class III males were found to have the highest mean values for both the anterior and the overall ratio even though these values were not statistically significant. These findings correlate with the findings of Wedrychowska-Szulc,[36] Nie and Lin,[46] and Lavelle et al.,[8] who also reported that Class III males have the highest discrepancy for both the ratios.

Evaluation of the relation between tooth size and different malocclusions revealed that the mean anterior ratio was highest in Class III malocclusion patients followed by Class I and least in Class II malocclusion group. Nie and Lin [46] reported the following finding between different malocclusion groups: class III > Class I > Class II which were similar to our findings. Lavelle, in his study, stated that Class III patients had smaller maxillary teeth and larger mandibular teeth in comparison to Class I and Class II individuals. Nie and Lin,[46] Sperry et al.,[48] and several other authors mirrored the findings of Lavelle et al.[8] which could possibly explain the finding of Class III individuals having greater Bolton values in comparison to other malocclusions. Several studies reported that the maxillary lateral incisor in Class III individuals are smaller in size and may contribute to the discrepancy in Bolton ratio in these patients. However, individual tooth size abnormalities were not assessed in the present study, and hence direct effect of a small maxillary lateral on Bolton's ratio could not be assessed. It is, however, important to consider such individual variations in tooth anatomy during treatment planning to ensure good anterior tooth inclination and interdigitation. The mean overall ratio, however, was not significantly different between the different malocclusion groups.

Several authors have suggested that it is important to measure individual tooth sizes before initiating orthodontic treatment (Othman and Harradine, 2006).[32],[34],[49] Bolton, in his study, suggested that discrepancies >1 SD can cause problems in clinical situations. However, in Bolton's study, casts of patients with ideal occlusion were used, and hence it might be difficult to determine the level of discrepancies which can have clinical implications. Santoro et al.,[10] Araujo and Souki,[43] Freeman et al.,[34] Othman and Harradine,[49] Crosby and Alexander,[50] and several other investigators have stated that a tooth size discrepancy of >2 SD or 1.5 mm of the Bolton norm can cause difficulties in tooth alignment and final occlusion. Proffit et al.[51] stated that a discrepancy >1.5 mm can create problems and should be considered during the treatment planning process.

The frequency and distribution of tooth size discrepancies were found to be very high in this study population, which further emphasizes the importance of taking into consideration tooth proportions during the treatment planning process. Bolton,[5] in his study, reported that 29% of the population had anterior tooth size discrepancies >±1 SD. Of the 311 patients included in this study, a total of 199 (64%) patients were found to have anterior tooth size discrepancies >±1 SD A total of 141 (45%) patients were found to have overall tooth size discrepancies >±1 SD Richardson and Malhotra [52] reported that 33.7% of patients had tooth size discrepancies >1 SD in their study.

When the sample was assessed for discrepancies >±2 SD, it was observed that a total of 105 (33.8%) patients had anterior tooth size discrepancies and 17 (5.5%) patients had overall tooth size discrepancies >±2 SD. Crosby and Alexander [50] found that 22.9% of the patients had tooth size discrepancies >2 SD. Santoro et al.[10] found that 28% of their study population had anterior discrepancies and 11% had overall tooth size discrepancies >2 SD. Freeman et al.[34] reported a 30% anterior tooth size discrepancy in their study. Bernabé et al.[11] and Oathman and Harradine [49] reported that 5.4% of their study samples had overall tooth size discrepancies >2 SD.

Clinical implications

The findings of the present study indicate that the mean anterior and overall ratios were significantly higher for the population studied when compared with the Bolton's norms which are being currently used to assess the prevalence of tooth size discrepancies. Hence, it is important to take into consideration the present values specific for this population during diagnosis and treatment planning of orthodontic patients as treating them to the already existing values might not provide the ideal occlusion sought at the end of treatment.


  Conclusions Top


Bolton's analysis was carried out in a total of 311 patients with Class I, Class II, and Class III malocclusions. The mean anterior ratio and mean overall ratios were compared between the study population and the original Bolton's ratio and the following conclusions were drawn:

  1. The mean anterior ratio and mean overall ratio was significantly higher at 79.17 ± 2.91 and 92.3 ± 1.88, respectively
  2. No sexual dimorphism was seen when tooth size was assessed as a function of gender
  3. When the anterior ratio was assessed as a function of malocclusion, patients with Class III malocclusion had the highest ratio in comparison to Class I and Class II. However, no differences existed for the overall ratio
  4. 33.8% of the population had anterior tooth size discrepancy, and 5.5% of the population has overall tooth size discrepancy >2 SD. Significant differences with the original Bolton's ratio and the increased prevalence of tooth size discrepancies within the population suggest the need for population-specific standards for better clinical assessment, treatment planning, and occlusion.


Financial support and sponsorship

Nil.

Conflicts of interest

There are no conflicts of interest.

 
  References Top

1.
Neff CW. Tailored occlusion with the anterior coefficient. Am J Orthod 1949;35:309-13.  Back to cited text no. 1
    
2.
Lundstrom A. Intermaxillary tooth width ratio and tooth alignment and occlusion. Acta Odontol Scand 1955;12:265-92.  Back to cited text no. 2
    
3.
Gilpatric WH. Arch predetermination – Is it practical? J Am Dent Assoc 1923;10:553-72.  Back to cited text no. 3
    
4.
Bolton WA. Disharmony in tooth size and its relation to the analysis and treatment of malocclusion. Angle Orthod 1958;28:113-30.  Back to cited text no. 4
    
5.
Bolton WA. The clinical application of tooth-size analysis. Am J Orthod 1962;48:504-29.  Back to cited text no. 5
    
6.
Ballard M. Asymmetry in tooth size: A factor in the etiology, diagnosis and treatment of malocclusion. Angle Orthod 1944;14:67-71.  Back to cited text no. 6
    
7.
McLaughlin RP, Bennett JC, Trevisi HJ. Systemized Orthodontic Treatment Mechanics. St. Louis: Mosby; 2001. p. 285.  Back to cited text no. 7
    
8.
Lavelle CL, Foster TD, Flinn RM. Dental arches in various ethnic groups. Angle Orthod 1971;41:293-9.  Back to cited text no. 8
    
9.
Smith SS, Buschang PH, Watanabe E. Interarch tooth size relationships of 3 populations: “Does Bolton's analysis apply?” Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop 2000;117:169-74.  Back to cited text no. 9
    
10.
Santoro M, Ayoub ME, Pardi VA, Cangialosi TJ. Mesiodistal crown dimensions and tooth size discrepancy of the permanent dentition of Dominican Americans. Angle Orthod 2000;70:303-7.  Back to cited text no. 10
    
11.
Bernabé E, Major PW, Flores-Mir C. Tooth-width ratio discrepancies in a sample of Peruvian adolescents. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop 2004;125:361-5.  Back to cited text no. 11
    
12.
Paredes V, Gandia JL, Cibrian R. Do Bolton's ratios apply to a Spanish population? Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop 2006;129:428-30.  Back to cited text no. 12
    
13.
Shahid F, Alam MK, Khamis MF. Intermaxillary tooth size discrepancy in a Pakistani population: A stereomicroscope versus digital caliper. Eur J Dent 2016;10:176-82.  Back to cited text no. 13
  [Full text]  
14.
Endo T, Shundo I, Abe R, Ishida K, Yoshino S, Shimooka S, et al. Applicability of Bolton's tooth size ratios to a Japanese orthodontic population. Odontology 2007;95:57-60.  Back to cited text no. 14
    
15.
Ta TA, Ling JY, Hägg U. Tooth-size discrepancies among different occlusion groups of Southern Chinese children. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop 2001;120:556-8.  Back to cited text no. 15
    
16.
Jhala VJ, Desai H, Dal MS, Patel N, Patel K. Bolton's Ratios for Indian Population, Can We Follow The Ideal Standards Blindly? J Dent Med Sci 2014;13:65-7.  Back to cited text no. 16
    
17.
Jindal R, Bunger E. Bolton's intermaxillary tooth size ratios among school going children in Punjab population. Indian J Oral Sci 2013;4:110-3.  Back to cited text no. 17
  [Full text]  
18.
Saini C, Moirangthem E. Comparison of tooth size discrepancy in Angle's class I and class II malocclusion in Rajasthani population. J Orthod Res 2015;3:92-5.  Back to cited text no. 18
  [Full text]  
19.
Kumar MS, Mohan AM, Kommi PB, Venkatesan R, Suresh V, Kumar KA. Evaluation of Bolton's discrepancy in untreated angle's class I patients in Pondicherry population: A cross-sectional study. J Int Oral Health 2015;7:86-9.  Back to cited text no. 19
    
20.
Murmu DC, Acharya SS, Das AR, Bhaumik B. Evaluation of tooth size and dental arch ratio in Bengali population sample. Orthod J Nepal 2013;3:70-9.  Back to cited text no. 20
    
21.
Anil S, Monika M. Bolton analysis of Himachali population. Indian J Dent Sci 2010;2:12-4.  Back to cited text no. 21
    
22.
Trehan M, Agarwal S, Sharma S. Applicability of Bolton's analysis: A Study on Jaipur population. Int J Clin Pediatr Dent 2012;5:113-7.  Back to cited text no. 22
    
23.
Hari Prasad Rao G, Sharmila. Bolton's norms for Hyderabad population. Ann Essences Dent 2012;4:70-9.  Back to cited text no. 23
    
24.
Reddy H, Jain M, Singh JR, Munje SA, Malagan M, Radhika N. Bolton analysis: revisited. Chhattisgarh J Health Sci 2013;1:16-9.  Back to cited text no. 24
    
25.
Sharma R, Kumar S, Singla A. Prevalence of tooth size discrepancy among North Indian orthodontic patients. Contemp Clin Dent 2011;2:170-5.  Back to cited text no. 25
[PUBMED]  [Full text]  
26.
Subbarao VV, Regalla RR, Santi V, Anita G, Kattimani VS. Interarch tooth size relationship of Indian population: Does Bolton's analysis apply? J Contemp Dent Pract 2014;15:103-7.  Back to cited text no. 26
    
27.
Ekka SB, Philip K, Shukla C, Balani R, Swamy K. Mesial distal crown width digital ratio for Kerala population: A Cross-sectional survey. J Ind Orthod Soc 2014;48:375-81.  Back to cited text no. 27
    
28.
Shastri D, Singh A, Tandon P. Bolton ratio in a North Indian population with different malocclusions. J Orthod Sci 2015;4:83-5.  Back to cited text no. 28
    
29.
Gaddam R, Arya S, Shetty KS. Incidence of tooth size discrepancy in different groups of malocclusion and its relation to extraction. J Int Oral Health 2015;7:48-53.  Back to cited text no. 29
    
30.
Fattahi HR, Pakshir HR, Hedayati Z. Comparison of tooth size discrepancies among different malocclusion groups. Eur J Orthod 2006;28:491-5.  Back to cited text no. 30
    
31.
Baidas L, Hashim H. An anterior tooth size comparison in unilateral and bilateral congenitally absent maxillary lateral incisors. J Contemp Dent Pract 2005;6:56-63.  Back to cited text no. 31
    
32.
Alkofide E, Hashim H. Intermaxillary tooth size discrepancies among different malocclusion classes: A comparative study. J Clin Pediatr Dent 2002;26:383-7.  Back to cited text no. 32
    
33.
Nourallah AW, Splieth CH, Schwahn C, Khurdaji M. Standardizing interarch tooth-size harmony in a Syrian population. Angle Orthod 2005;75:996-9.  Back to cited text no. 33
    
34.
Freeman JE, Maskeroni AJ, Lorton L. Frequency of Bolton tooth-size discrepancies among orthodontic patients. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop 1996;110:24-7.  Back to cited text no. 34
    
35.
Al-Omari IK, Al-Bitar ZB, Hamdan AM. Tooth size discrepancies among Jordanian schoolchildren. Eur J Orthod 2008;30:527-31.  Back to cited text no. 35
    
36.
Wedrychowska-Szulc B, Janiszewska-Olszowska J, Stepień P. Overall and anterior Bolton ratio in class I, II, and III orthodontic patients. Eur J Orthod 2010;32:313-8.  Back to cited text no. 36
    
37.
Kachoei M, Ahangar-Atashi MH, Pourkhamneh S. Bolton's intermaxillary tooth size ratios among Iranian schoolchildren. Med Oral Patol Oral Cir Bucal 2011;16:e568-72.  Back to cited text no. 37
    
38.
Kundi IU, Bashir U, Zahid S, Shaheed S, Usman K. Bolton tooth size analysis of Pakistanis of 13 to 20 years in Islamabad city. Pak Oral Dent J 2012;32:421-6.  Back to cited text no. 38
    
39.
Rahman AN, Athman SA. Comparison of tooth size discrepancy of three main ethnics in Malaysia with Bolton's ratio. Sains Malaysiana 2012;41:271-5.  Back to cited text no. 39
    
40.
Khan R, Antony VV. Evaluation of tooth size discrepancies among different malocclusion groups in Sirte – Libya. J Dent Med Sci 2013;6:15-8.  Back to cited text no. 40
    
41.
Gurdan Z, Marada G, Herenyi G, Nagy A. Examining tooth-size discrepancies in regard to treatment, treatment planning and completion. Open J Dent Oral Med 2014;2:43-6.  Back to cited text no. 41
    
42.
Abdalla Hashim AH, Eldin AH, Hashim HA. Bolton tooth size ratio among Sudanese population sample: A preliminary study. J Orthod Sci 2015;4:77-82.  Back to cited text no. 42
    
43.
Araujo E, Souki M. Bolton anterior tooth size discrepancies among different malocclusion groups. Angle Orthod 2003;73:307-13.  Back to cited text no. 43
    
44.
Akyalçin S, Doǧan S, Dinçer B, Erdinc AM, Oncaǧ G. Bolton tooth size discrepancies in skeletal class I individuals presenting with different dental angle classifications. Angle Orthod 2006;76:637-43.  Back to cited text no. 44
    
45.
Sameshima GT. Bolton tooth size variation among four ethnic groups. In: 84th IADR General Session and Exhibition. Brisbane: International Association for Dental Research held in Brisbane, Australia between 28 June - 1 July 2006; 2006.  Back to cited text no. 45
    
46.
Nie Q, Lin J. Comparison of intermaxillary tooth size discrepancies among different malocclusion groups. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop 1999;116:539-44.  Back to cited text no. 46
    
47.
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;138:599-607.  Back to cited text no. 47
    
48.
Sperry TP, Worms FW, Isaacson RJ, Speidel TM. Tooth-size discrepancy in mandibular prognathism. Am J Orthod 1977;72:183-90.  Back to cited text no. 48
    
49.
Othman SA, Harradine NW. Tooth-size discrepancy and Bolton's ratios: A literature review. J Orthod 2006;33:45-51.  Back to cited text no. 49
    
50.
Crosby DR, Alexander CG. The occurrence of tooth size discrepancies among different malocclusion groups. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop 1989;95:457-61.  Back to cited text no. 50
    
51.
Proffit WR, Fields HW, Sarver DM. Contemporary Orthodontics. 5th ed. St. Louis: Elsevier; 2013.  Back to cited text no. 51
    
52.
Richardson ER, Malhotra SK. Mesiodistal crown dimension of the permanent dentition of American Negroes. Am J Orthod 1975;68:157-64.  Back to cited text no. 52
    


    Figures

  [Figure 1]
 
 
    Tables

  [Table 1], [Table 2], [Table 3], [Table 4], [Table 5], [Table 6], [Table 7], [Table 8], [Table 9], [Table 10], [Table 11], [Table 12], [Table 13]



 

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
Conclusions
References
Article Figures
Article Tables

 Article Access Statistics
    Viewed41    
    Printed3    
    Emailed0    
    PDF Downloaded8    
    Comments [Add]    

Recommend this journal


[TAG2]
[TAG3]
[TAG4]