Skip Navigation



The European Journal of Orthodontics Advance Access published online on August 17, 2006
The European Journal of Orthodontics, doi:10.1093/ejo/cjl015
This Article
Right arrow Full Text (Rapid PDF)
Right arrow All Versions of this Article:
28/5/485    most recent
cjl015v1
Right arrow Alert me when this article is cited
Right arrow Alert me if a correction is posted
Services
Right arrow Email this article to a friend
Right arrow Similar articles in this journal
Right arrow Similar articles in PubMed
Right arrow Alert me to new issues of the journal
Right arrow Add to My Personal Archive
Right arrow Download to citation manager
Right arrowRequest Permissions
Google Scholar
Right arrow Articles by Legovic, M.
Right arrow Articles by Ivancic, N.
Right arrow Search for Related Content
PubMed
Right arrow PubMed Citation
Right arrow Articles by Legovic, M.
Right arrow Articles by Ivancic, N.
Social Bookmarking
Add to CiteULike   Add to Connotea   Add to Del.icio.us  
What's this?

© The Author 2006. Published by Oxford University Press on behalf of the European Orthodontics Society. All rights reserved. For permissions, please email: journals.permissions@oxfordjournals.org.

Article

A comparison of methods for predicting the size of unerupted permanent canines and premolars

Mario Legovic 1 *, Andrea Novosel 1, Tomislav Skrinjaric 1, Asja Legovic 1, Barbara Mady 1, and Natasa Ivancic 1

1 Department of Orthodontics, School of Dental Medicine, University of Rijeka, Croatia

* To whom correspondence should be addressed.
Mario Legovic, E-mail: mario.legovic{at}pu.t-com.hr


  Abstract

The aim of this study was to examine the reliability of eight methods for determining the mesio-distal crown diameters (MDD) of the permanent canines and premolars (C, P1, and P2). The study models of 120 children (60 boys and 60 girls) aged from 14 to 18 years treated in orthodontic clinics were measured using Seipel's method, with callipers accurate to 0.01 mm. The correlation coefficients were determined between the MDD of C, P1, and P2 measured on the study models and the sums calculated using various other methods.

The correlation coefficients derived by comparison with the methods of Moyers, Tanka and Johnston, Droschl et al., Legovic and Hauz, and Berendonk-Nawrath showed a tendency to over-estimate the MDD of C, P1, and P2, while the regression methods of Gross and Hasund, Bachmann, and Tränkmann et al. under-estimated the values. Bachmann's method appeared to give the most reliable results.


Add to CiteULike CiteULike   Add to Connotea Connotea   Add to Del.icio.us Del.icio.us    What's this?




Disclaimer: Please note that abstracts for content published before 1996 were created through digital scanning and may therefore not exactly replicate the text of the original print issues. All efforts have been made to ensure accuracy, but the Publisher will not be held responsible for any remaining inaccuracies. If you require any further clarification, please contact our Customer Services Department.