Predictors of variation in mandibular incisor enamel thickness
Section snippets
SUBJECTS, MATERIALS AND METHODS
We evaluated 80 subjects at Virginia Commonwealth University School of Dentistry who agreed to participate in the study. We obtained approval from the university's institutional review board and received informed consent from each subject or his or her parent or guardian. Our eligibility criteria were that subjects have no history of IPR and that they have well-aligned permanent mandibular incisors; we required the latter so that we could obtain radiographs with no overlap of adjacent teeth. We
RESULTS
We detected no statistically significant differences between the repeated sets of measurements for 10 subjects. The correlation between the sets was high for tooth thickness (r = .99), enamel thickness on the mesial surface (r = .95) and enamel thickness on the distal surface (r = .98). Average differences between repeated measures were less than 0.01 mm.
Table 1 shows the mean values for incisor width and enamel thickness for all subjects. We detected no significant differences between the
DISCUSSION
IPR is a technique that many practitioners use to reduce incisor crowding, resolve anterior tooth size discrepancies and improve the stability of tooth alignment. It is believed that the thickness of an incisor's enamel at the contact point is related to the amount of enamel that can be removed safely without deleterious sequelae.4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13 We conducted this study to determine factors that can be used to help predict the amount of enamel at the contact points on the
CONCLUSIONS
Our study examined the relationship between mandibular incisor proximal enamel thickness and tooth type, tooth surface, race, sex and overall tooth width. We found significant differences in enamel thickness related to tooth type and surface, as well as race. Lateral incisors had a greater proximal enamel thickness than did central incisors. Enamel thickness on distal surfaces was greater than that on mesial surfaces. Black subjects had thicker enamel on average than did white subjects. Overall
References (28)
- et al.
Orthodontic treatment with a series of removable appliances (published correction appears in JADA 2003;134[10]:1322)
JADA
(2003) - et al.
An index for assessing tooth shape deviations as applied to the mandibular incisors
Am J Orthod
(1972) A study of the effects of mesiodistal reduction of mandibular anterior teeth
Am J Orthod
(1956)- et al.
Frequency of Bolton tooth-size discrepancies among orthodontic patients
Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop
(1996) - et al.
The occurrence of tooth size discrepancies among different malocclusion groups
Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop
(1989) Anterior interocclusal relations, part I
Am J Orthod
(1980)Anterior interocclusal relations, part II
Am J Orthod
(1980)- et al.
Caries risk after interproximal enamel reduction
Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop
(2006) - et al.
A radiographic assessment of enamel thickness in human maxillary incisors
Arch Oral Biol
(1998) - et al.
Tooth diameters and arch perimeters in a black and a white population
Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop
(1991)
Mesiodistal crown dimension of the permanent dentition of American Negroes
Am J Orthod
An evaluation of dental radiograph accuracy in the measurement of enamel thickness
Arch Oral Biol
The clinical application of a tooth-size analysis
Am J Orthod
An approach to maintain orthodontic alignment of lower incisors without the use of retainers
Eur J Orthod
Cited by (33)
An alternative approach for the surgical correction of unilateral crossbite
2023, American Journal of Orthodontics and Dentofacial OrthopedicsCitation Excerpt :According to the literature, it would be risky because IPR among the 5 anteroinferior contact points will gain at the most 2.5 to 3.8 mm of space (on average)33-35 and should not exceed 0.75 mm per contact point.34 Depending on the shape of the teeth, such as triangular shape incisors, more space can be gained with the same amount of IPR,36,37 but that was not the case in this clinical report. Increasing the width of maxillary incisors in the present case would not be a good idea because the incisors were initially well positioned and proclination that would have come from space opening would have negatively affected his smile.38
Proximal enamel thickness of the permanent teeth: A systematic review and meta-analysis
2021, American Journal of Orthodontics and Dentofacial OrthopedicsCitation Excerpt :The distal enamel thickness ranged from 0.60 to 0.88 mm, whereas the mesial enamel thickness ranged from 0.64 to 0.76 mm. The mandibular central and lateral incisors were assessed by Hall et al,9 Bian et al,16 and Ferreira et al,20 whereas Sarig et al3 and Shillingburg and Grace21 combined the data from the central and lateral incisors. The meta-analysis revealed that the enamel was thicker on the distal aspect by 0.09 mm (95% CI, 0.03-0.015) for the mandibular incisors.
Enamel microstructural features of bovine and human incisors: A comparative study
2021, Annals of AnatomyAtomic force microscopy analysis of enamel nanotopography after interproximal reduction
2017, American Journal of Orthodontics and Dentofacial OrthopedicsEffect of aging on the microstructure, hardness and chemical composition of dentin
2015, Archives of Oral BiologyIn vitro evaluation of accuracy and precision of automated robotic tooth preparation system for porcelain laminate veneers
2015, Journal of Prosthetic Dentistry
- 1
Dr. Hall is in private practice in orthodontics, Iowa City, Iowa.
- 2
Dr. Lindauer is the Norborne Muir professor and the chair, Department of Orthodontics, Virginia Commonwealth University, School of Dentistry, 520 N. 12th St., Richmond, Va. 23298-0566
- 3
Dr. Tüfekçi is an assistant professor, Department of Orthodontics, Virginia Commonwealth University, School of Dentistry, Richmond.
- 4
Dr. Shroff is a professor, Department of Orthodontics, Virginia Commonwealth University, School of Dentistry, Richmond.