Skip to main content
PMC home page
The Angle Orthodontist logoLink to The Angle Orthodontist
. 2011 Jan;81(1):130–133. doi: 10.2319/050610-246.1

Tooth size discrepancies in Irish orthodontic patients among different malocclusion groups

Gerard O'Mahony a, Declan T Millett b,✉, Mark K Barry c, Grant T McIntyre d, Michael S Cronin e
PMCID: PMC8926355  PMID: 20936965

Abstract

Objective:

To determine the prevalence of tooth size discrepancies (TSDs) in an Irish orthodontic population among different malocclusion groups.

Materials and Methods:

From 850 pretreatment sets of orthodontic models at a university clinic, 240 were selected with 30 female and 30 male sets for each malocclusion (Class I, Class II division 1, Class II division 2, and Class III). Digital models were produced, and the mesial and distal contact points were digitized to calculate overall and anterior tooth size ratios. The differences between the male and female groups and among the malocclusion groups were analyzed using two-way analysis of variance (ANOVA) (P < .05).

Results:

A clinically significant anterior TSD (more than two standard deviations from the Bolton means) existed in 37.9% of the subjects. No differences existed in the prevalence of overall TSDs between the male and female groups (P  =  .5913) or among the malocclusion groups (P  =  .0809). For the mean anterior tooth size ratios in the male group, the values for Class III and Class II division 2 were higher than in Class II division 1, and the value for Class II division 2 was higher than in Class I (P  =  .0184).

Conclusions:

The prevalence of anterior tooth size discrepancies in this sample of Irish orthodontic patients was 37.9%. There were no statistically significant differences in the prevalence of mean overall TSDs with regard to malocclusion or gender. In the male group, the mean anterior tooth size ratio was higher in Class III and in Class II division 2 malocclusion than in Class II division 1 and higher in Class II division 2 malocclusion than in Class I malocclusion.

Keywords: Tooth size discrepancy, Bolton, Malocclusion

INTRODUCTION

A tooth size discrepancy (TSD) is a disproportion among the sizes of the individual teeth.1 As significant tooth size discrepancies prevent an ideal occlusion being produced at the end of orthodontic treatment, the absence of a TSD is the seventh “key” for an ideal occlusion.2 Overall, TSDs relate to all teeth excluding second permanent and third molars, whereas anterior TSDs involve the six anterior teeth.

Among patients undergoing orthodontic treatment, the prevalence of an overall TSD has varied from 4%–11%3–6 but is about 5% in the nonorthodontic population.7 Anterior TSDs, however, have a prevalence between 17% and 31% among orthodontic patients,3,6,8–10 and this is similar to the prevalence of 20.5% in nonorthodontic patients.7

Trends have been identified in the prevalence of TSDs among the malocclusion groups. TSDs are more common in Class II division 1 malocclusions8 and in Class III malocclusions.5,10–13 Although Uysal and Sari14 found no differences in tooth size ratios between malocclusion groups, a greater prevalence of larger tooth size ratios was noted when orthodontic and nonorthodontic groups were compared.

While in general men have bigger teeth than women,15 this does not mean that they have larger tooth size ratios or an increased prevalence of TSDs. In particular, Lavelle16 and Smith et al.17 found larger tooth size ratios in men than in women, but the differences at 0.6%–1.0% were not significant. This was confirmed by Mirzakouchaki et al.18 in an investigation of Iranian-Azari subjects.

Ethnicity/race has also been found to be an influence on TSDs. Mean overall and anterior tooth size ratios in subjects with excellent occlusions have been found to be on average greater in Blacks than in either Mongoloids or Whites.16 Smith et al.17 found that Black people had the highest overall tooth size ratios (93.4%) followed by Hispanics (92.3%) and then Whites (91.2%). The anterior tooth size ratio was higher for Hispanics (80.5%) than for Black people (79.3%). Despite these findings, Othman and Harradine19 noted that the trend to larger overall tooth size ratios in Black populations is unlikely to be clinically relevant. Significant discrepancies in the overall and anterior tooth size ratios have been found in Japanese, Iranian-Azari, Spanish, and Brazilian subjects.4,18,20,21 Although the prevalence of tooth size ratios has been investigated in the British population,6 and tooth size has been investigated in subjects with bimaxillary dental protrusion in a British subgroup,22 specific data regarding overall and anterior tooth size ratios in the Irish population are not available.

The most common method of assessing a TSD involves the measurement of the mesiodistal widths of teeth using conventional fine-pointed calipers or digital calipers.1 The development of digital scanning of study models has facilitated the automated calculation of tooth size ratios once the mesial and distal points of each tooth have been identified.20,23,24 Measurements derived using 3D digital study models have been found to be an appropriate alternative to those derived using plaster models and digital calipers20,23,24 with the advantages of being faster and providing easier storage of data.25

The aim of this study is to determine the prevalence of tooth size discrepancies (TSDs) in Irish orthodontic patients among different malocclusion groups using 3D digital study models.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

From 850 pretreatment sets of orthodontic study models at a university clinic, models were identified that fulfilled the following criteria:

  • Permanent central incisor-first permanent molar erupted in each quadrant

  • Subjects of Irish ethnic background determined from case records

  • No retained primary teeth

  • No abnormal tooth morphology

  • No previous orthodontic treatment

  • No factors which prevented accurate measurement of mesiodistal tooth widths including restorations, fractured teeth, or broken teeth on models

The first 60 sets of each malocclusion subgroup (Class I, Class II division 1, Class II division 2, and Class III), with 30 male and 30 female sets in each group, were selected to produce a total sample of 240 model sets. The incisor relationship was classified according to the British Standards Institute classification.26 The severity of the malocclusion or skeletal relationship was not assessed. The models were scanned using an R250 orthodontic study model scanner (3Shape A/S, Copenhagen, Denmark) to produce digital images and were then evaluated using OrthoAnalyzer (3Shape A/S). The mesial and distal aspects of all teeth (excluding the second and third permanent molars) were landmarked by one assessor. The overall and anterior tooth size ratios according to Bolton1 were then automatically calculated. Using SAS (version 9.1.3, SAS Institute Inc, Cary, NC), differences were calculated between the classes, with comparisons being adjusted using the Sidak method27 to preserve the overall type I error rate at 5%. Residual analyses were performed to confirm the adequacy of the analysis of variance (ANOVA) models. Intraobserver reliability for landmark identification was assessed by relandmarking a 10% random sample of the digital images (24 model sets across the entire sample) 6 weeks after the initial assessment and evaluating differences in the automatically calculated anterior and overall Bolton ratios using two-way ANOVA.

RESULTS

Within this study sample 37.9% had a clinically significant mean anterior TSD, as defined by those cases having ratios more than two standard deviations from the means in Bolton's study1 of cases with good occlusions. There were no statistically significant errors associated with the measurement of either the mean overall tooth size ratios (mean difference  =  .004; SD .011) or the mean anterior tooth size ratios (mean difference  =  .001; SD .014). For the mean overall tooth size ratios, no statistically significant differences were found between the genders (Tables 1 and 2) (P  =  .5913) or among the malocclusion classes (P  =  .0809). For the mean anterior tooth size ratios (Tables 3 and 4), there was an interaction between gender and the incisal class (P  =  .0184). There were differences between the incisal classes (P  =  .0143) and, as the interaction was significant, these differences between incisal classes were not the same for the two genders. For the female group there were no differences between the incisal classes.

Table 1.

Mean Overall Tooth Size Ratios

graphic file with name i0003-3219-81-1-130-t01.jpg

Open in a new tab

Table 2.

Analysis of Mean Overall Tooth Size Ratios

graphic file with name i0003-3219-81-1-130-t02.jpg

Open in a new tab

Table 3.

Mean Anterior Tooth Size Ratios

graphic file with name i0003-3219-81-1-130-t03.jpg

Open in a new tab

Table 4.

Analysis of Mean Anterior Tooth Size Ratios

graphic file with name i0003-3219-81-1-130-t04.jpg

Open in a new tab

DISCUSSION

The prevalence of clinically significant anterior TSDs1 in this Irish sample (37.9%) is higher than the recorded 17.4% in a British orthodontic population.6 The prevalence, however, falls between that reported in a US population by Freeman et al.9 and a Dominican American population by Santoro et al.3 Furthermore, the overall mean tooth size ratio in the Bolton study was .91 compared to .92 in the present study, and the mean anterior tooth size ratio in the Bolton study was .77 compared to .79 in the present study.

When considering the mean overall tooth size ratios, there were no statistically significant differences between men and women corroborating with previous studies that have identified minor (statistically insignificant) differences between men and women.16,17,19 Furthermore, we were unable to find any statistically significant differences in the mean overall tooth size ratios between the different malocclusion groups. This is in accordance with the findings of Uysal and Sari14 who identified no differences in tooth size ratios between malocclusion groups in a Turkish population, but contrasts with Nie and Lin28 who identified a higher prevalence of increased overall tooth size ratios in Class III malocclusions compared to Class I and Class II malocclusions in a Chinese population.

In this study, the mean anterior tooth size ratios exhibited no statistically significant differences between genders and no statistically significant differences among the malocclusion groups. This is similar to the findings by Crosby and Alexander8 and Araujo and Souki.10 There was a difference in the mean anterior tooth size ratios among the malocclusion groups for men. The highest mean anterior tooth size ratios for men were for Class II division 2 (.811) and for Class III (.803) compared to Class I (.784) and Class II division 1 (.779). This trend towards higher tooth size ratios in Class III malocclusion was noted previously by Ta et al.12 in a Chinese population and Alkofide and Hashim13 in a Saudi population. Strujic et al.5 found there was a tendency for mandibular tooth excess in subjects with Class III malocclusions and for maxillary tooth excess in subjects with Class II malocclusions in an orthodontic population. Othman and Harradine19 suggested that this may be another factor that complicates the treatment of Class III malocclusion. There was also a higher prevalence of mean anterior tooth size ratios in the male Class II division 2 malocclusion group which may have restorative implications.

The high prevalence of anterior TSDs in this Irish orthodontic population suggests that a tooth size analysis should be conducted at the treatment planning stage. Where significant TSDs are detected, this is normally accommodated by the reduction or augmentation of tooth tissue.29

CONCLUSIONS

  • The prevalence of anterior tooth size discrepancies in this sample of Irish orthodontic patients was 37.9%.

  • There were no statistically significant differences in the prevalence of overall TSDs with regard to malocclusion or gender. In men, the mean anterior ratio was higher in Class III and in Class II division 2 malocclusion than in Class II division 1 malocclusion and higher in Class II division 2 malocclusion than in Class I malocclusion.

REFERENCES

  • 1.Bolton W. A. Disharmony in tooth size and its relation to the analysis and treatment of malocclusion. Angle Orthod. 1958;28:113–130. [Google Scholar]
  • 2.Bennett J. C, McLaughlin R. P. Orthodontic Management of the Dentition with the Preadjusted Appliance. St Louis, Mo: Mosby; 2002. [Google Scholar]
  • 3.Santoro M, Ayoub M. E, Pardi V. A, Cangialosi T. J. Mesiodistal crown dimensions and tooth size discrepancy of the permanent dentition of Dominican Americans. Angle Orthod. 2000;70:303–307. doi: 10.1043/0003-3219(2000)070<0303:MCDATS>2.0.CO;2. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 4.Endo T, Abe R, Kuroki H, Oka K, Shimooka S. Tooth size discrepancies among different malocclusions in a Japanese orthodontic population. Angle Orthod. 2007;78:994–999. doi: 10.2319/101007-486.1. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 5.Strujic M, Anic-Milosevic S, Mestrovic S, Slaj M. Tooth size discrepancy in orthodontic patients among different malocclusion groups. Eur J Orthod. 2009;31:584–589. doi: 10.1093/ejo/cjp013. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 6.Othman S. A, Harradine N. W. Tooth size discrepancies in an orthodontic population. Angle Orthod. 2007;77:668–674. doi: 10.2319/031406-102. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 7.Bernabé E, Major P. W, Flores-Mir C. Tooth-width ratio discrepancies in a sample of Peruvian adolescents. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop. 2004;125:361–365. doi: 10.1016/j.ajodo.2003.04.008. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 8.Crosby D. R, Alexander C. G. The occurrence of tooth size discrepancies among different malocclusion groups. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop. 1989;95:457–461. doi: 10.1016/0889-5406(89)90408-3. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 9.Freeman J. E, Maskeroni A. J, Lorton L. Frequency of Bolton tooth-size discrepancies among orthodontic patients. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop. 1996;110:24–27. doi: 10.1016/s0889-5406(96)70083-5. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 10.Araujo E, Souki M. Bolton anterior tooth size discrepancies among different malocclusion groups. Angle Orthod. 2003;73:307–313. doi: 10.1043/0003-3219(2003)073<0307:BATSDA>2.0.CO;2. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 11.Nie Q, Lin J. A comparison of dental arch forms between Class II Division 1 and normal occlusion assessed by euclidean distance matrix analysis. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop. 2006;129:528–535. doi: 10.1016/j.ajodo.2005.12.012. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 12.Ta T. A, Ling J. Y, Hagg U. Tooth-size discrepancies among different occlusion groups of southern Chinese children. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop. 2001;120:556–558. doi: 10.1067/mod.2001.118998. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 13.Alkofide E, Hashim H. Intermaxillary tooth size discrepancies among different malocclusion classes: a comparative study. J Clin Pediatr Dent. 2002;26:383–387. doi: 10.17796/jcpd.26.4.j46352g860700614. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 14.Uysal T, Sari Z. Intermaxillary tooth size discrepancy and mesiodistal crown dimensions for a Turkish population. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop. 2005;128:226–230. doi: 10.1016/j.ajodo.2004.04.029. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 15.Bishara S. E, Jakobsen J. R, Abdallah E. M, 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;96:416–422. doi: 10.1016/0889-5406(89)90326-0. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 16.Lavelle C. L. Maxillary and mandibular tooth size in different racial groups and in different occlusal categories. Am J Orthod. 1972;61:29–37. doi: 10.1016/0002-9416(72)90173-x. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 17.Smith S. S, Buschang P. H, Watanabe E. Interarch tooth size relationships of 3 populations: “does Bolton's analysis apply?”. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop. 2000;117:169–174. doi: 10.1016/s0889-5406(00)70228-9. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 18.Mirzakouchaki B, Shahrbaf S, Talebiyan R. Determining tooth size ratio in an Iranian-Azari population. J Contemp Dent Pract. 2007;8:86–93. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 19.Othman S. A, Harradine N. W. Tooth-size discrepancy and Bolton's ratios: a literature review. J Orthod. 2006;33:45–51. doi: 10.1179/146531205225021384. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 20.Paredes V, Gandia J. L, Cibrian R. Do Bolton's ratios apply to a Spanish population? Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop. 2006;129:428–430. doi: 10.1016/j.ajodo.2005.03.020. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 21.Freire S. M, Nishio C, Mendes Ade M, Quintao C. C, Almeida M. A. Relationship between dental size and normal occlusion in Brazilian patients. Braz Dent J. 2007;18:253–257. doi: 10.1590/s0103-64402007000300015. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 22.McCann J, Burden D. J. An investigation of tooth size in Northern Irish people with bimaxillary dental protrusion. Eur J Orthod. 1996;18:617–621. doi: 10.1093/ejo/18.6.617. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 23.Stevens D. R, Flores-Mir C, Nebbe B, Raboud D. W, Heo G, Major P. W. Validity, reliability, and reproducibility of plaster vs digital study models: comparison of peer assessment rating and Bolton analysis and their constituent measurements. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop. 2006;129:794–803. doi: 10.1016/j.ajodo.2004.08.023. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 24.Mullen S. R, Martin C. A, Ngan P, Gladwin M. Accuracy of space analysis with emodels and plaster models. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop. 2007;132:346–352. doi: 10.1016/j.ajodo.2005.08.044. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 25.Othman S. A, Harradine N. W. Tooth-size discrepancy and Bolton's ratios: the reproducibility and speed of two methods of measurement. J Orthod. 2007;34:234–242. doi: 10.1179/146531207225022302. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 26.British Standard Incisor Classification Glossary of Dental Terms BS 4492. London, UK: British Standard Institute; 1983. [Google Scholar]
  • 27.Kang G, Ye K, Liu N, Allison D. B, Gao G. Weighted multiple hypothesis testing procedures. Stat Appl Genet Mol Biol. 2009;8:Article23. doi: 10.2202/1544-6115.1437. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 28.Nie Q, Lin J. Comparison of intermaxillary tooth size discrepancies among different malocclusion groups. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop. 1999;116:539–544. doi: 10.1016/s0889-5406(99)70186-1. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 29.Tong H, Chen D, Xu L, Liu P. The effect of premolar extractions on tooth size discrepancies. Angle Orthod. 2004;74:508–511. doi: 10.1043/0003-3219(2004)074<0508:TEOPEO>2.0.CO;2. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

Articles from The Angle Orthodontist are provided here courtesy of Edward H Angle Education and Research Foundation, Inc

RESOURCES