<%BANNER%>

Relationship of Mesiodistal Tooth Size to Extraction Rate and Post-Treatment Changes in the Class II Division 1 Malocclusion

xml version 1.0 encoding UTF-8
REPORT xmlns http:www.fcla.edudlsmddaitss xmlns:xsi http:www.w3.org2001XMLSchema-instance xsi:schemaLocation http:www.fcla.edudlsmddaitssdaitssReport.xsd
INGEST IEID E20101118_AAAAFC INGEST_TIME 2010-11-19T04:34:13Z PACKAGE UFE0014295_00001
AGREEMENT_INFO ACCOUNT UF PROJECT UFDC
FILES
FILE SIZE 100449 DFID F20101118_AACYQH ORIGIN DEPOSITOR PATH reed_j_Page_20.jp2 GLOBAL false PRESERVATION BIT MESSAGE_DIGEST ALGORITHM MD5
eba3041c39cb10fac668e04cde142272
SHA-1
ad9a38370d1c7c057d417752e70e5cf105ede785
1947 F20101118_AACYTE reed_j_Page_21.txt
e6f4f75de12ba661e7126601f0878b29
9cae66bd2c31f23db867491afb145befec1494eb
5508 F20101118_AACYUY reed_j_Page_04.QC.jpg
7f4363fa003738c3ca1682d074f9056e
d52f13c6b39e45a0c29e13c313c169c0db4c118a
106765 F20101118_AACYQI reed_j_Page_21.jp2
80c7afb2425206eb8570c8b1c8af1cb2
74bfb1fc4410066a086adcd12fd2df1b4e2690a0
372 F20101118_AACYTF reed_j_Page_22.txt
fad9b106565175746af097c3833f0183
901ed586fb4e6fefa13a277aca1664504563a7a5
1392 F20101118_AACYUZ reed_j_Page_05thm.jpg
6d56e4ed5a95fe98ca33be74e4551a34
195675c90632ed8dae0f5d5b124ddc32b586cf09
20966 F20101118_AACYQJ reed_j_Page_22.jp2
c46c01914ceb4a199a24080e1b71d479
de0d2ffe70723f9adc99445dff37cf0722ebad4c
1450 F20101118_AACYTG reed_j_Page_23.txt
eefc25a801a7796c98fe83bf764af004
32d03eb58eaa583d65ac019a8be627c335a06eab
76497 F20101118_AACYQK reed_j_Page_23.jp2
b0c197edbd0c131c07f01867160fd8ca
7b66201cd63c068214e4641ca859ea5ff92fb0b1
2007 F20101118_AACYTH reed_j_Page_24.txt
698608b70b5e924b3a5ea6f3a73e074a
3422ed60bc0ef674adb0f4528752ec5a5404b77d
102997 F20101118_AACYQL reed_j_Page_24.jp2
65566344d2a314e1d794f74996cf51b1
248104820ece316e60b48eacd607c30cfbaa3e3e
119908 F20101118_AACYQM reed_j_Page_25.jp2
0a9788101196f64a74662fea602da162
4522f04ff506b1f711c03a618c3ff70ed95e6b74
2332 F20101118_AACYTI reed_j_Page_25.txt
6a36349f2eebaf36e301e8a6f0f8506f
88dfd86440d583cd02a6a535a33bd5bc97390380
20010 F20101118_AACYQN reed_j_Page_26.jp2
c4312589ec882046439daa7cbe1cc24f
3b20daf9c6f68827751a685b06800743b13a2e16
330 F20101118_AACYTJ reed_j_Page_27.txt
ee03e446cedb983297506de739ee441a
b8d249ce1d721c45ca80ebdc6dcd16d11eadae07
19038 F20101118_AACYQO reed_j_Page_27.jp2
05e1b38f034bc85ad1bebad82ec15f11
588cb8ffb4fc0227f24eb6ef7455a1a0d70dd590
2055 F20101118_AACYTK reed_j_Page_01thm.jpg
5b3a6c01ffffa82bf2f085cc500e24f5
59bca0318f8cfa40db837e7c039ddfbdd52173e8
1053954 F20101118_AACYQP reed_j_Page_01.tif
898f1f7a4ea450955de625979b5d9918
49a6edcadab19e451c7ab68b44663dfb9c00c731
172991 F20101118_AACYTL reed_j.pdf
38ba8bba79b425c068f249a2d0f88b01
0e10943f0ed27486e1b372af8fb76b2d00b558f6
F20101118_AACYQQ reed_j_Page_02.tif
3771f63964f493f97c9655839b1a0b35
c7a45b0dc93a82a9c463a0eff2b4351b6790af14
5117 F20101118_AACYTM reed_j_Page_06thm.jpg
3c1793a1ce92eac0c2ca2a03050c82f1
4417c296356dfa989b835ee2684ec233db3e4d32
25271604 F20101118_AACYQR reed_j_Page_03.tif
00941bd8fdb0fc8fc957018a9c559f94
b49a6222cf7fdec588610acca0679fdd5e60d695
18803 F20101118_AACYTN reed_j_Page_16.QC.jpg
e9bdd949f119731580969e551975b82d
b38cf55e300cc36220666b247339c3cf871d78ee
F20101118_AACYQS reed_j_Page_04.tif
5e699216af1af6062e57a9f5399575d0
504e4fdc2525db2008f489c24647c4d55b763ecf
22757 F20101118_AACYTO reed_j_Page_19.QC.jpg
5bf52fe1f89844c8e3c7ce61c3dbd106
7e4c203bd6940184779af6fb8ea3caa3026eb11e
F20101118_AACYQT reed_j_Page_05.tif
c016c20fd09ff2a289198fbcef73e932
8c70d4e356883f851c8264e283c903c3d144cd73
2658 F20101118_AACYTP reed_j_Page_03thm.jpg
1ac957cb17b0c3afaf79f777d035a05b
a2c50b266cab9f2037c25479984e0971eb054815
73928 F20101118_AACYPA reed_j_Page_13.jpg
ec6b9ffe1f1714ad248a9b107be4a8eb
ceb59eb5adb636dad1d5dab58c19222307d12f9d
34253 F20101118_AACYNY reed_j_Page_23.pro
a89149ad30441f61c6de4b188ee7b833
ed7b43eac746ced512275fed2518f22759e239c5
F20101118_AACYQU reed_j_Page_06.tif
ff02139146492fe6dc770c281cb37a39
56cbf8672dd21010e2eb957c9e53bc75b02e9522
5359 F20101118_AACYTQ reed_j_Page_19thm.jpg
08eaba51b83ebbb1ad33691b2ea2f270
4dc19fa5832933a74e8de129d36b169db91da61c
69589 F20101118_AACYPB reed_j_Page_14.jpg
962ef4212c55c074ff0a8d2bf746e4bf
5b21d428ae340dd8eff32d2322b4bbfcf109e8a9
1843 F20101118_AACYNZ reed_j_Page_19.txt
5a9544b1b04be7428fa4a293b75ba416
f5ae9e1ef4f94a486042e629f7f988ff2210e794
F20101118_AACYQV reed_j_Page_07.tif
b6ecc74c2cb8ef68ae099ed1577372d3
e81a57270875eda1610e62a00c12c2f8a4be16d9
2220 F20101118_AACYTR reed_j_Page_07thm.jpg
5b6bdfeec9e595aaec0e2350cf5ccd24
e3749e2412bc094cbd3d5651a7e2bb6fc105c83b
82849 F20101118_AACYPC reed_j_Page_15.jpg
73fa195e15fe3a9ca4bdae15cecfea03
97141b91f91ad5c33d93ce8f2a372ee94dd9f5f1
F20101118_AACYQW reed_j_Page_09.tif
0c83026329899dc8024b9b364a833423
d5d1286810cd42476f3a880e42394292dd95b54e
5620 F20101118_AACYTS reed_j_Page_13thm.jpg
1645ae005d8c75634aa447ecef1cc350
ff9e53e420251af4bb70365b75f80e8e4ea239f4
62464 F20101118_AACYPD reed_j_Page_16.jpg
0d9cbb05342f8a3ff7196b8025fb3477
3b02503d2ba42ef395c230b704610d456d779656
F20101118_AACYQX reed_j_Page_10.tif
a6fec7a3ea9fc13ac0f114a435783bad
c99c2f422777d573cb2b6e72548f4f5d4ea3d60c
7836 F20101118_AACYTT reed_j_Page_12.QC.jpg
8ceb93296dc8633373a2ab2086b04227
ef8d18d549edefc1465a849ddf6cae75c9f9e36c
43437 F20101118_AACYSA reed_j_Page_13.pro
d4b50e1e303cffac3425840e4471d9ab
c63f3c788426c16cf4299c57b03ceffa22ced861
F20101118_AACYQY reed_j_Page_11.tif
a90c28c2ab2d4967cf79ff3fd1640a33
2d2c42e1a91bfa7a9287faf8033723d8fa85c154
1492 F20101118_AACYTU reed_j_Page_22thm.jpg
7d8df6b65bd7c65d937bb3cd6b26e256
eb77c3f78bab0f68c0d12c1dec68d94f005790d6
24416 F20101118_AACYPE reed_j_Page_17.jpg
9efe2d8bfc2d71d1c5cd9af6d5dcd91b
2fe1ea704195ce6a37fe6c013eb2bd8a0a24ef00
42918 F20101118_AACYSB reed_j_Page_14.pro
76459de52b07a5af1865ac21ea3240d0
ce4d32b6837ffa3b30ca926c570370d5dea1d38a
F20101118_AACYQZ reed_j_Page_13.tif
99e376c19c76dd94cef8b0a7dff14472
35eef7d71d82a46543a694b946d051e749424413
1446 F20101118_AACYTV reed_j_Page_27thm.jpg
d84f4008dd37763020e613c31262b82d
0044f6675272c1e522beec58024947323ed06c23
50503 F20101118_AACYPF reed_j_Page_18.jpg
b17e2283787e3c4126d90d13badf15b3
f796158447810678b66cdee85cab69018c404791
50803 F20101118_AACYSC reed_j_Page_15.pro
84d695e999a4193986c3e521e86c5995
4ffacbac6b6bc660210d7edddd4c92b2590126b6
21595 F20101118_AACYTW reed_j_Page_11.QC.jpg
b918d4de9e7c42e53f780fd95b44d123
f075195e94fecbf74c51ecc22419b4e1b5bac172
73682 F20101118_AACYPG reed_j_Page_19.jpg
22f0fdc385bd3065531993dd9fb8fa20
a74aeb390d0ea17f16b269771ce8e16e1003e936
37711 F20101118_AACYSD reed_j_Page_16.pro
4e479b51cc935c55da8aa5a88f01ccd0
7436928e20d543414655d14db6b2f8fd2f499045
5382 F20101118_AACYTX reed_j_Page_08thm.jpg
721b775d45a0b568a3ecbb64a537734d
b91e1c2b2f6d5d092df62394cbea0118aa2a6151
75712 F20101118_AACYPH reed_j_Page_20.jpg
24723f84bd36cd79adceef865cadc4da
807223e159d016342c554a8416c1cbde5a923a24
18854 F20101118_AACYSE reed_j_Page_17.pro
06b0eea96410f5cf32840c5cb5262a26
58807ec00441bc5a5f3148c8cc0af81a63034e0d
15635 F20101118_AACYVA reed_j_Page_09.QC.jpg
c2025d199002199715488b2061b71489
918feb4d8bc8740dd93a13c68c0f5ca51be62700
548 F20101118_AACYTY reed_j_Page_02thm.jpg
0cadfdc4f728bf741f5e487c50a557e8
f0171de389fefe3034a371e4b4107b19fd98af63
79875 F20101118_AACYPI reed_j_Page_21.jpg
12ff2859aad78146f40b3ba5bb188c43
d1bceda6aa1075a6d0bc219efa9c6eb1ff51429c
21381 F20101118_AACYSF reed_j_Page_18.pro
1e3dfad45b388d6a1ba9c1a6b91baf29
ca09f83ed98fd02d5263274d138c58630b006f81
22855 F20101118_AACYVB reed_j_Page_13.QC.jpg
f313a4610f81e91afafad4a32db7cde2
5b286bffe7853a636f497abeb5360639ac0c35f1
6371 F20101118_AACYTZ reed_j_Page_15thm.jpg
635c11b4de5d389a8c412fae38676841
b6bcdf246fd2016afce3f4130b85e1ec550bb5c4
16595 F20101118_AACYPJ reed_j_Page_22.jpg
7d6a4665f7e7bb0614bedc90414ebcf4
7ae948140bff8feb371c48cebbb9eba6a1b22e8c
44676 F20101118_AACYSG reed_j_Page_19.pro
d7575733ffd26a21fcaf0c42651a6781
93733416c37fbfb1ac4f8f171bff578bf1e3c275
20406 F20101118_AACYVC reed_j_Page_14.QC.jpg
4596d9b822e93e456b68c57a470706fe
8ff91b7b6e3abf32703bc23a226e48bec659407d
59498 F20101118_AACYPK reed_j_Page_23.jpg
eb0b2e008bf0db3ba8aec1d6bb9e6946
4b333edcd0291792816a17cb0c780b3a391fb807
26162 F20101118_AACYVD reed_j_Page_15.QC.jpg
83af02abbb645c3ac408cb473a617025
7ab0deaec247b80944cc1d08abdfcd64a166db91
79865 F20101118_AACYPL reed_j_Page_24.jpg
18eb45f903590ca05a1b77f4f63ba45a
589035ce0baeede004ed0a385a43510d6ec6aee7
46078 F20101118_AACYSH reed_j_Page_20.pro
dbeba8d12a61cd644608b38e1d94e7a8
814743d69c566ceadf96a864a3cb4fc13c98046a
4693 F20101118_AACYVE reed_j_Page_16thm.jpg
4562fe98d177b8ace419f2d49b7e9cb2
f75229a15c11c32171857755a471b50c9f14056c
49110 F20101118_AACYSI reed_j_Page_21.pro
67b07a4be5dabdb093017305ee330bab
94472d401e58309a492a366e2886747eac9844a1
2477 F20101118_AACYVF reed_j_Page_17thm.jpg
c404798f9e9ab6a985069543fbe6632a
92167d89646be228939153020453efb55ab364f1
94399 F20101118_AACYPM reed_j_Page_25.jpg
b9a30110d3b241aa9d4c33117e6e5e71
07180e0d01baa80f5dee1989e36f6a53e285ad48
48468 F20101118_AACYSJ reed_j_Page_24.pro
784a4a090b2459fecf91c29bd1d0fc5b
7832cac2536739814b1a689433a079414b89a9a2
5755 F20101118_AACYVG reed_j_Page_20thm.jpg
d9cab4baa43bc4b07beec496eb5a46d6
ab0c41852257833624278c9f6457e4ff388c8a86
16639 F20101118_AACYPN reed_j_Page_26.jpg
ecffa819fd1a4b90f951e6907c59a683
f1eaaaaab59e7013835e857741ede24978eb306f
23408 F20101118_AACYVH reed_j_Page_20.QC.jpg
f7025197d7498926f58a365564357681
6e579a5e9b275be876c8610b11f0f91dc7af1a39
16235 F20101118_AACYPO reed_j_Page_27.jpg
e04e7ad83c9000e9ead63ff07d7c6302
5231bbf9772ca0da0366128a103dd8fe180e35ce
56049 F20101118_AACYSK reed_j_Page_25.pro
fe046435e95c278a84f047131bfb286c
7c459a190bf1fa8ef697c36b68fd4ef6fed62576
5356 F20101118_AACYVI reed_j_Page_22.QC.jpg
32fb83851f4846bfd0a51246a8d0f983
70ee5429bb35c1da926d45b741ed986ded9ab444
26552 F20101118_AACYPP reed_j_Page_01.jp2
45348655f3b921c1850b27fcf0e1198f
46af1ed6955ee06e8176262b3d42866903b20289
8351 F20101118_AACYSL reed_j_Page_26.pro
b0310267208064d67e1b44ff425eb39f
f5bdcd00ee43b19e90fd4859d45a7ebd93ee0c86
6017 F20101118_AACYPQ reed_j_Page_02.jp2
b83b2ec31d0726177f267ce5940307dd
c64b6c0b6fb80d48a10bf8a80b934aedb5b98f37
7089 F20101118_AACYSM reed_j_Page_27.pro
76168254ce11fb93f1c4c5bd449528e4
cc21a93648ac3369d54aa3ec9b3a2f03bfb241bc
5619 F20101118_AACYVJ reed_j_Page_24thm.jpg
12e70bf10e47f2f3acad84b23bd6195e
6004c7809763d816aa63cc24fc41d502edb75d8d
830192 F20101118_AACYPR reed_j_Page_03.jp2
3c5c75012835abb082653abf8703a880
bf3a463266cec5d9f2938f80b2dc584ef1aef331
492 F20101118_AACYSN reed_j_Page_01.txt
4a6c2ef1bd425a195346c3cf1543abaa
ab6df591642a8dc3c98dd9dd37703093abe903ea
351324 F20101118_AACYPS reed_j_Page_04.jp2
019838d0d27acc945af49081e23e1917
e56cca9e2ed74922b364288907874deb27cd3a95
1475 F20101118_AACYSO reed_j_Page_03.txt
2370daf40790d937caf442772922a92a
1207e65e9b627872385a94fa830f2d1aa9d03e7c
320511 F20101118_AACYPT reed_j_Page_05.jp2
c7e4800009b7d050fb9c90463228b7c2
0876b1a64fff0ce97c517d9fb458f953ecc8f132
619 F20101118_AACYSP reed_j_Page_04.txt
c04f21e2aa279fb46ab5e3fd41ab2687
523cbe428347633fe189e0c00e08e0358190e7f7
1743 F20101118_AACYOA reed_j_Page_06.txt
a3dad3726a34ef29cbb9f8073db90479
154559ea1df378ee97a84de04a1983eaa4f72950
88431 F20101118_AACYPU reed_j_Page_06.jp2
ce34644a808e79d8f875fe60a02f1f0c
5865166aa38b8d365686d0c321587468ecc77287
412 F20101118_AACYSQ reed_j_Page_05.txt
5c34d2e7167338785c16483afa659187
13354d25845b765522b32491af8bd84c5761c4e0
8293 F20101118_AACYOB reed_j_Page_22.pro
69a0c50e15bbea9d825fccaea4ae08c2
ae13f24800393de36c6077117f06756135866d4c
37117 F20101118_AACYPV reed_j_Page_07.jp2
de285a3fe4e0b3b94b6598cd7c76f72d
ed33b752867834d1b3341e1312482acc6ec999fb
609 F20101118_AACYSR reed_j_Page_07.txt
b0838c1c73bfc137a0e01024470a6aeb
f828ff5be37b4a8ffaa8b54cf8a4c561be8f6f72
18258 F20101118_AACYOC reed_j_Page_23.QC.jpg
c9e58ac2710715a83d3de9a817680017
ba4d91a98e8a7b4663f846be4ae08a8487127894
66085 F20101118_AACYPW reed_j_Page_09.jp2
4306cb8d6c79c12eb3d96e91a4324a95
06bce53fcca2c91e6159f104a6e28648db39ea30
1815 F20101118_AACYSS reed_j_Page_08.txt
5863593dca72c1684230a7bb9b319c24
89057ef9951cd4b1cb4d43f04679be791100084d
87530 F20101118_AACYPX reed_j_Page_10.jp2
a317ead9c0c8ae2db187b30a13ea5420
2423f076938def520b7279abdcb3e44a3aa10e50
1190 F20101118_AACYST reed_j_Page_09.txt
37ed48a096d5cd11a366a6b084d17c87
418124201f524ec431ed3e75c7319f7ca3ae679c
F20101118_AACYOD reed_j_Page_12.tif
5b8ee35d025ae8caf6e06d275d4f1af0
b61b1497c0c9d76b1987e45be7600361388245af
F20101118_AACYRA reed_j_Page_14.tif
d464fbbdf3d3a77478f621fbc6171471
684bfbc0ce03a5df4266d13c2f929e2c6e721775
92900 F20101118_AACYPY reed_j_Page_11.jp2
4cf9c89f7a4a0ed9a267cf70529a08f5
323606b85e1ae7e1920c32e202bfc256a822ad1d
1734 F20101118_AACYSU reed_j_Page_10.txt
e36dbdb001c24b3b2cb565ed1f95134b
f2a8487f8d9b5657402dcbb423027b04993c386a
387 F20101118_AACYOE reed_j_Page_26.txt
973e6ca3aea0deb0efd95d369e84716c
b3408e80d6851fadde8bd98f94f6d70e63fded1b
F20101118_AACYRB reed_j_Page_15.tif
f0b1a97c85ab39248574196cbad75643
38b56405befe7e8edadfcbf343d20ee9e3bdbe27
31096 F20101118_AACYPZ reed_j_Page_12.jp2
7d86817b6cd926a9eda80abc4f98f7a5
71fa03d96f40730449ead6b364d88e602b103b65
1703 F20101118_AACYSV reed_j_Page_11.txt
18a17e98e778654c1a0983dfe1dfd135
101acb333fd8b080e8ef750215b4c4d76354b8e2
4595 F20101118_AACYOF reed_j_Page_02.jpg
78924b82bfe76510e8e3c8820392b7a6
4c37e74e278de138a055b7df8560161391dd9327
F20101118_AACYRC reed_j_Page_16.tif
0aa04efc4d0adfa6e67d7a4f611d9b2a
741be14749fb58bf69cdb1e34a9ac57cb47caaa2
546 F20101118_AACYSW reed_j_Page_12.txt
efc318553d3cdb11c2c15ee5108ddf21
e7620181e130b72d6df35e0298a573ee6018a405
4023 F20101118_AACYOG reed_j_Page_09thm.jpg
dc9dfce09fcccb3dcea021bd721f759a
c325a544f490ee3ae6872c6460ff51749f96f447
F20101118_AACYRD reed_j_Page_17.tif
ad5434a34796a5c0a0a1dcc973752043
91f43cbcbeaed17ee02e7e4c71fd4098fb4a1330
1794 F20101118_AACYSX reed_j_Page_13.txt
e825d13b903ba3f496e0e40f16de8245
6ea4a89858f2e4d7de48e4ca75899baf0cfd75e0
6469 F20101118_AACYOH reed_j_Page_25thm.jpg
cd8c8a745099897e528fe6c2cb8283e8
dc7fddc821796c6aeec484b6a3b0aaef21f74476
F20101118_AACYRE reed_j_Page_18.tif
ace22c15e3b933ed84bf7f72a02023e1
272199b713eb59e3817638af832a1cad8f53815e
1515 F20101118_AACYUA reed_j_Page_02.QC.jpg
d8ac2f762748abf36e17c6bc84b30864
ad83278584df12ef248e993e531c52a078408239
2029 F20101118_AACYSY reed_j_Page_14.txt
6f326049c72454ae6d964430fc1b3dc9
976efd0e8c1f00aef95db989457a77ebe27db756
94123 F20101118_AACYOI reed_j_Page_08.jp2
f5c219bf8a06424155eb9b2e72e8d597
dc8511ecc6a1bf6afa977de87f359fe6a8a8eb59
F20101118_AACYRF reed_j_Page_19.tif
103768a02cb0680ac585fee94d4c7835
e71b325c6c6050e5130287d206dede2f30c2e35b
5344 F20101118_AACYUB reed_j_Page_11thm.jpg
0073601136cd00cf6313a75f6f273135
0b8de8ce9b84f0e5c5718fcdff166e30fb281a32
2006 F20101118_AACYSZ reed_j_Page_15.txt
320343086e339b3b6c500a7f504491d9
331be389234ade058be3b1fae9f0c8d6a5366d03
F20101118_AACYOJ reed_j_Page_08.tif
86d463fbc026465fdd3af68401c5e3a2
9553df7254d6d2678ea8f8061c807346fa36f8f9
4199 F20101118_AACYUC reed_j_Page_18thm.jpg
cd92857ef26aebc98fb497d54bfbf244
c42539fd108dd6df473cfd190dab7f86f2614846
120 F20101118_AACYOK reed_j_Page_02.txt
5258068dd38572589551b66ec4c0450f
dfc2b00a42f7123783d88420101a1b97ddb35207
F20101118_AACYRG reed_j_Page_20.tif
54010798604740b239d580a2f4446e57
d615c8b24fe4e6b76c2f91ae0c0af1dedbc18d58
21908 F20101118_AACYUD reed_j_Page_08.QC.jpg
ac31153cac973ad695dd3843648d8beb
841d35be5c7fb25a3e1d31c564c227036a2b6ec6
4832 F20101118_AACYOL reed_j_Page_05.QC.jpg
61bc1974f4368311348220da6fbb3a75
0a5a43f55df7e0a234528a4836f69b0a3c866228
F20101118_AACYRH reed_j_Page_21.tif
40b1bed95857c0aa7cc3129cdd39cb74
cba55bc04fa769261406febf2b91d21aaec5cdfb
5172 F20101118_AACYUE reed_j_Page_14thm.jpg
fb41ace1bc11f05e78fd0a05f478ead4
a84a53720d3972c6237596b75e7a7a6e0dd75e8f
34753 F20101118_AACYOM UFE0014295_00001.mets FULL
2a29a8f1ce44f4b2aff96e4bc07b3974
b7a2dc945ac57bd9824c1d88f3ec166fc483c4fe
F20101118_AACYRI reed_j_Page_22.tif
55002622ebc5e0be3251e84896e3a2b5
92f912d285cd07395dc3823fcd7528f1b5c8411a
27549 F20101118_AACYUF reed_j_Page_25.QC.jpg
283c8f253ad1f81926f3bd0af516d27d
64bd46cfc100c6cddd0559a4845d45cd640f062c
F20101118_AACYRJ reed_j_Page_23.tif
58a6281e39e2a43aca3bd2af4bd5b953
3751e7438c0e2af7d596a443d12be1e221b84e56
20490 F20101118_AACYUG reed_j_Page_10.QC.jpg
0bfa1943b48ba97564e59a6cf370e1fa
9673044b58560490e8167b5174efdfe61d2ed083
F20101118_AACYRK reed_j_Page_24.tif
6591eb052ee895d48dd70f0bcbd59363
65e8f14d721ace7f18d8e0eade1426fdcc27d440
9223 F20101118_AACYUH reed_j_Page_07.QC.jpg
6c46b2a2be75daa7294997dd1ea5e2b1
e2e16711fd1593a88b30d07cb35f3b20622fdae2
24249 F20101118_AACYOP reed_j_Page_01.jpg
eeae0d226f35397238c8c70ddf5fca52
82a1403529cde9ce8f72c8581eab2b377d8e8689
F20101118_AACYRL reed_j_Page_25.tif
cc4cfbe496984359b7c9663d563335f1
b2b0d191b1d47898158937a43f34ef1dccb80c39
5156 F20101118_AACYUI reed_j_Page_10thm.jpg
2c0e6be37cbd7df7fa4875eb9322fbff
5cf07c3cb61f234b636471bf407b58dbdfd688bb
38373 F20101118_AACYOQ reed_j_Page_03.jpg
68ca99e660aa4df308fe26c8b2dbeb34
b7d305033f0ca784e7ee0ed14418488ae8e047ab
F20101118_AACYRM reed_j_Page_26.tif
40cc22e5abc633398a14715ab3a31057
d6f2b4edbef18df24de655711891e1371e2145c8
19302 F20101118_AACYOR reed_j_Page_04.jpg
b9b3af50c638cf9d594aa5f4c7352941
215705508c09c89e741880c7de020b3cbb576742
F20101118_AACYRN reed_j_Page_27.tif
03eda9aac030007284f7cbb6f1989bc6
5a66e4c18b55035738deff5c2be2ca61bff259f6
15766 F20101118_AACYUJ reed_j_Page_18.QC.jpg
e890cf0b5740bf8f5f7f7ce5727831fd
8fc2dd59279529056e490758585d7abdf6418db0
15966 F20101118_AACYOS reed_j_Page_05.jpg
d5a73f9344877bc155bb523d883254ea
bfaeda143067316285201dbc6542f5492cda2614
9155 F20101118_AACYRO reed_j_Page_01.pro
de1fe4407d0d1a19f485244c817c3bf2
7d771c1ab4312825330a33826fe613dcaa1af9dd
5976 F20101118_AACYUK reed_j_Page_21thm.jpg
10dd90b087058fd5221e0125e5f7e86b
ddbadc0fa223411a1d148b67a9660c19e220ea51
71246 F20101118_AACYOT reed_j_Page_06.jpg
c59f2a6bce17b26bb63fd5afacf81d33
6e493cf19b5f3742ffb0307371776ef6dd999a61
1302 F20101118_AACYRP reed_j_Page_02.pro
f1b860ab1de35a674d612c4f74d78000
3adc67c39de17f42ca17e274f3a97daa86f53d49
1328 F20101118_AACYUL reed_j_Page_26thm.jpg
9bed42f4d2631d0a42151c21782be1e6
fb5a6f91f14a0726960dd8770f4fe0efecfadddf
27545 F20101118_AACYOU reed_j_Page_07.jpg
9d595d8d5b97a9e93e902fb4ec692e39
a698b3e86ffac48b1144104f2f4a02a5b04557b9
34740 F20101118_AACYRQ reed_j_Page_03.pro
c5c3e119829a236fb2b88e8e57ae4630
05bc546867e17ef75ed36aa1fd86352cb488a61c
9327 F20101118_AACYUM reed_j_Page_03.QC.jpg
915d9d645527d03b8e755e3773eead49
830c3d22aefb9ea3ab56caeca0df00857f5e4c3e
71907 F20101118_AACYOV reed_j_Page_08.jpg
a4083e1be592a44a79f4709e70114383
54ac671ad5134f8939e5955f49bb760880953136
13813 F20101118_AACYRR reed_j_Page_04.pro
0d59f9fd589aba40803019f8f81951cf
431d3596ad9674f5602bd7199a9a0181715fde5c
4864 F20101118_AACYUN reed_j_Page_27.QC.jpg
77f4e058168488d68e1aa610b06704a1
ce47776681843954cae8ac6496d072467092b36e
49789 F20101118_AACYOW reed_j_Page_09.jpg
06df1d9afbf3ff26e8f76b07d948ff8c
104ee7b058d00fd58a376de47db4a12991d9122f
9013 F20101118_AACYRS reed_j_Page_05.pro
f2d0efb098ee4c7993335cab603a3b78
ab27420c1dbb6250b811f72e1d53732f3b1c0d02
25191 F20101118_AACYUO reed_j_Page_21.QC.jpg
4179e29fa5486ae479f984c90ec417db
1fa6e33c8a3b53f81df8f3baa160b0774fc0073d
67747 F20101118_AACYOX reed_j_Page_10.jpg
f7929eced68b0c776f7ca34e1f74200a
0f2df3e6ee6b8bbaf3ad35fa9c364151d1792a46
40238 F20101118_AACYRT reed_j_Page_06.pro
7e6be62bf7227ea07b89ddb02ad1a404
9630f98b10d55f01d71b78f5380b8e56085043b3
23616 F20101118_AACYUP reed_j_Page_24.QC.jpg
a6a08b1356ce329d9f4c6bef7433e0dd
eba7245535c8c74eda759635cc3a0256b734f796
70650 F20101118_AACYOY reed_j_Page_11.jpg
d2c8135239778b93182df4b98ccbb783
ec2607d4dafcf7b87e013c8e2ce830a9a9b6900a
15298 F20101118_AACYRU reed_j_Page_07.pro
e4ce9cdcf639be2a30d27489bda0bac7
239681c87c1a98b837196a6655a16a3039fc0f17
4828 F20101118_AACYUQ reed_j_Page_26.QC.jpg
7dab7e0f1a3e12d74b51143593f63120
3f9c30b3bcb87bf31c0bb649ef6d446045dfce28
95705 F20101118_AACYQA reed_j_Page_13.jp2
4494293717c40ac4d29980b0ecfa7b2c
f682ccbf77bf778e1d5ad895a2bda8515a0bd7dc
43599 F20101118_AACYRV reed_j_Page_08.pro
5fefd1a62a605c8c6711aa89b755b683
299b30b61e5e33c8811e732c3e080232a7c96726
F20101118_AACYUR reed_j_Page_12thm.jpg
2116e3f85d8571f708555638b95aecf3
0d41169dbaaebd0558c3d04c5478513453e507b8
84307 F20101118_AACYQB reed_j_Page_14.jp2
f4c5e7761ab48cacb9a1c66b23b7e585
f2ac0b650998d3e0d6afe81458d16b0271cce81a
23589 F20101118_AACYOZ reed_j_Page_12.jpg
a4b48d12a112446ca91532a5eb380252
676d2939331d42c6682c8214aad0e61b5a929723
29626 F20101118_AACYRW reed_j_Page_09.pro
f9eccce34b4bc2dccbd67d4d7a07bb8b
f0be5c8e7cf55b216bf0a64426e2886e0648cfd0
7956 F20101118_AACYUS reed_j_Page_17.QC.jpg
84227240c3713843ae30bec4ab3c80d8
9df4e3a4ca146794b890ed0400337ce9a65de557
109165 F20101118_AACYQC reed_j_Page_15.jp2
fa0c52dc0e7ac1dff2dbc03dceac489d
4e6bee3b1635e4a1a5e3a107a9c828bc8dd76766
20992 F20101118_AACYUT reed_j_Page_06.QC.jpg
d0b83ff46a8cb3357548d81bb0514a2a
e6d29fd4a9aebbb156271b0a9b644c4c8e5237a1
83152 F20101118_AACYQD reed_j_Page_16.jp2
ae8661157c73d109a763ac26aef0f140
2b11dbef64297e7d6a846ab51841c5f881eb21ec
40056 F20101118_AACYRX reed_j_Page_10.pro
ea33d73f834068cff37a51e5958bef95
d6b15ca2d01ce4472261578ea97215d6102861f1
4634 F20101118_AACYUU reed_j_Page_23thm.jpg
f665f377be04c98b06b9ae051b59b34d
69401d375d8755eb8fb780b02340e0d4614860e1
260499 F20101118_AACYQE reed_j_Page_17.jp2
9140cd7bbdd4f294071aa27b750359ea
f78be99ff5854688cbeb28313c1b8c12a63bae8d
1784 F20101118_AACYTA reed_j_Page_16.txt
a0fcae34707de5ca054193545a441e86
c8cb9ba5c12916a41683cd0c91c980f2d97e7d40
41418 F20101118_AACYRY reed_j_Page_11.pro
a968618bb0bf6f60236fb30cb02b46d6
5b4a3b1e41d018f68b7238e2aa270a54ad40083f
1117 F20101118_AACYTB reed_j_Page_17.txt
83c3dea388e5a86ee5f3c8ecf8e69835
5612a7c3689a76a66c910c480238d0d82a157a6a
12110 F20101118_AACYRZ reed_j_Page_12.pro
c9548aa7957347f2b61e8836c5830f80
05c1725c7dee4d83a3157399e1011545bf55587b
44258 F20101118_AACYUV UFE0014295_00001.xml
5e6b921e257b0b2a4f763ad956bbaa11
7387e8bf1c2869d9cf2dcfc22a4b7f1ca9683e66
680771 F20101118_AACYQF reed_j_Page_18.jp2
8c9f96f7e85e3c6e597b9a789eb80fc3
1633598bfa8a62f1e67382d9445fef35119ecdcc
1090 F20101118_AACYTC reed_j_Page_18.txt
3f9500254b5e06186c4b121d34170e6b
8ef78e27a142a882ddb27cc469576ae35dda9a2a
7190 F20101118_AACYUW reed_j_Page_01.QC.jpg
6adedb50735d1b530922ebd6d88ad127
6e5edd5f8434e0d870a9a3d6db9917b3d1953122
95586 F20101118_AACYQG reed_j_Page_19.jp2
5310bce30f9698651416c290df97a5e3
38eb006c4b4cf74aa80a19091b953f689c83a67e
1832 F20101118_AACYTD reed_j_Page_20.txt
595146c710a640cdc257f687c231f92e
80b0868d6da3138a1b0379c560ba881bb2a1e71e
1622 F20101118_AACYUX reed_j_Page_04thm.jpg
70ed850909f6bcea3c5b6f5fa257fc7d
20d601858df71cc78297ea8dede18ddbc1eaa3f2



PAGE 1

RELATIONSHIP OF MESIODISTAL TOOT H SIZE TO EXTRACTION RATE AND POST-TREATMENT CHANGES IN THE CLASS II DIVISION 1 MALOCCLUSION By JUDDSON ROBERTS REED A THESIS PRESENTED TO THE GRADUATE SCHOOL OF THE UNIVERSITY OF FLOR IDA IN PARTIAL FULFILLMENT OF THE REQUIREMENTS FOR THE DEGREE OF MASTERS OF SCIENCE UNIVERSITY OF FLORIDA 2006

PAGE 2

Copyright 2006 by Juddson Roberts Reed

PAGE 3

TABLE OF CONTENTS page LIST OF TABLES .............................................................................................................iv LIST OF FIGURES .............................................................................................................v ABSTRACT .......................................................................................................................vi CHAPTER 1 INTRODUCTION........................................................................................................1 2 MATERIAL AND METHODS....................................................................................3 Sample..........................................................................................................................3 Methods........................................................................................................................3 Data Analysis................................................................................................................4 3 RESULTS.....................................................................................................................6 4 DISCUSSION.............................................................................................................12 5 CONCLUSIONS........................................................................................................16 LIST OF REFERENCES...................................................................................................17 BIOGRAPHICAL SKETCH.............................................................................................20 iii

PAGE 4

LIST OF TABLES Table page 3-1. Mean tooth width (values in mm.)..............................................................................7 3-2. Tooth width and initial PAR by sex...........................................................................7 3-3. Percent of subjects with extractions by treatment group, sex, and DC7 molar class severity..............................................................................................................9 iv

PAGE 5

LIST OF FIGURES Figure page 3-1. Mean combined 2-2 tooth width by sex for extraction and nonextraction subjects.10 3-2. Change from DCF in mean PAR score and components for extraction and nonextraction groups................................................................................................11 v

PAGE 6

Abstract of Thesis Presented to the Graduate School of the University of Florida in Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements for the Degree of Master of Science RELATIONSHIP OF MESIODISTAL TOOTH SIZE TO EXTRACTION RATE AND POST-TREATMENT CHANGES IN THE CLASS II DIVISION 1 MALOCCLUSION By Juddson Roberts Reed May 2006 Chair: Timothy T. Wheeler Major Department: Orthodontics Mesiodistal tooth size has been implicated in untreated crowding and post-treatment alignment change. The purpose of this study was to determine if tooth size is related to malocclusion severity, extraction frequency, and post-treatment change in a group of class II division 1 subjects treated as part of a 2-phase randomized controlled clinical trial at the University of Florida. Included subjects were those who began the study and had initial Peer Assessment Rating (PAR) scores (n=257) and who completed the study and had final PAR scores (n=204). Tooth width was measured on dental casts at the completion of treatment or at the time point closest to completion of treatment, and extracted teeth were noted from the casts. It was shown that males had significantly larger teeth. Initial PAR and molar class severity did not differ by sex, but tooth size was significantly correlated in males with initial overjet (R=0.23 [upper 2-2], 0.16 [combined 2-2]) and PAR score (R=0.28 [upper 2-2], 0.18 [combined 2-2]). Tooth size had significant correlations with lower anterior alignment for females (R=0.20 [upper 2-2], vi

PAGE 7

0.27 [lower 2-2], 0.23 [combined 2-2]). Tooth size was not related to initial molar class severity. More males were treated with second phase extractions with the majority of extractions done in the upper arch. Females only showed significant differences in tooth size when comparing extraction and non-extraction subjects, suggesting that females received extractions for excess tooth mass or protrusion, and males received extractions for classification purposes. There were no differences in post-treatment PAR score change between extraction and non-extraction subjects. vii

PAGE 8

CHAPTER 1 INTRODUCTION Tooth size, along with available arch length and desired ultimate tooth position, is part of the important space analysis during orthodontic diagnosis and treatment planning. Tooth size has been studied throughout the history of orthodontics to explain preand post-treatment crowding, differences in classification, and even for extraction guidelines. A few studies have shown that larger teeth are associated with crowding. 1,2 However other studies found no association between tooth size and crowding 3 while others will claim that tooth size and arch dimension have equal contributions. 4 Many authors 5-10 have found males to have larger teeth than females, and ethnic tooth size differences have been shown. 9 The size of the crowns of teeth have been shown to be linked to heredity through twin studies. 11 Skeletal and dental classification have been shown to influence tooth size and Boltons discrepancies, class III subjects having greater differences between maxillary and mandibular tooth size than class I and class II, which did not differ. 9,12-14 Incisor shape as defined as the ratio between mesiodistal and faciolingual dimensions 15 and contact point to cervical area mesiodistal width 16 are the major determinants in lower anterior crowding of untreated arches. However, other studies have failed to show correlation between incisor shape and crowding and have suggested that mesiodistal width alone correlates to crowding. 17,18 Gilmore and Little 19 examined the relationship between mandibular incisor dimensions and arch alignment in 164 class I and II cases 10 years after completion of 1

PAGE 9

2 treatment. They found a weak positive correlation between incisor dimension and crowding. Glenn et al. 20 evaluated 28 nonextraction treated cases 8 years post-retention and found no association between mesiodistal or faciolingual incisor dimension and pretreatment or post-treatment incisor crowding. Multiple scoring systems have been utilized to assign quantitative descriptors to treatment results such as Littles irregularity index 21 and the PAR index. 22 Birkeland et al. 23 found that pre-treatment PAR score was a good predictor for post-treatment PAR score and long term outcome. Pavlow 24 found that post-treatment PAR score and PAR score change is not related to Phase I treatment type in a group of class II subjects treated during a prospective clinical trial. Given the contradiction in the literature about tooth size and crowding, we sought to examine if this relationship existed for class II subjects. In addition, we wanted to determine if sexual dimorphism in tooth size existed in our cohort. Finally, we wanted to evaluate whether tooth size related to extraction rate and PAR changes during retention.

PAGE 10

CHAPTER 2 MATERIAL AND METHODS Sample This study included a sample of individuals with Class II malocclusion who participated in a prospective randomized controlled trial at the University of Florida. The design of this study was published by Keeling et al. 25 in 1998. Methods Tooth measurements were done on stone casts with digital calipers by one examiner [JRR]. The mesiodistal width was measured and recorded at the contact point for maxillary and mandibular incisors, canines, and premolars, bilaterally. Stone models have been validated for accurate measurement by Gilmore and Little, 19 and bilateral measurements are advocated by Ballard 26 due to his documentation of right-left tooth size discrepancies. A digital caliper was oriented parallel to the occlusal plane of the teeth and the vestibular surface of the model as per the method standardized by Moorrees and Reed. 27 Measurements were done on final models. In the case of extraction treatment, the size of any extracted tooth was taken from models at an appropriate previous time point if available; the teeth that were extracted were noted for use in analysis. If the final models were not of good diagnostic value (fractured or distorted) measurements were done on the next available retention models. Of the 312 subjects who began the studys first phase, 257 had tooth measurements and initial PAR scores available for analysis. For subjects who may not have completed the study, models at the latest time point available 3

PAGE 11

4 were measured. Dental casts of diagnostic value were available for 204 of the 208 subjects who completed the study. The measurements were summed for each subject as summed upper and lower 2 nd premolar to 2 nd premolar (5-5) and summed upper and lower lateral and central incisors (2-2) for data analysis. Initial molar class (mild, bilateral one-half cusp; moderate, 1 side three-fourths cusp; severe, 1 side full cusp) was used to grade the severity of the class II malocclusion. 28 Peer assessment rating (PAR) scores were used to assess post-treatment stability. The American weighted, raw unweighted, and component (upper and lower alignment, overjet, and overbite) scores were used as stability variables. To quantify post-treatment stability, the difference between PAR scores and components at DCF and DCR was calculated as ([PAR score change] = [PAR score @ DCR1,2,3] [PAR score @ DCF]). Data Analysis To determine examiner reliability, tooth width of ten randomly chosen subjects casts was measured twice two weeks apart. For each tooth measured, the difference between the two measurement time points was averaged among the ten subjects. Mean difference ranged from 0.10mm for the lower right canine to 0.20 for upper right lateral incisor. Chi-square test was used to compare the number of individuals with and without extractions by phase I treatment group, sex, and initial molar class severity. Combined tooth width between male and females and between extraction and non-extraction subjects was compared with a 2 sample t-test.

PAGE 12

5 Wilcoxon rank sum was used to compare combined tooth size and PAR score at DC1 by sex. It was also used to compare PAR score components and PAR score component change between extraction and non-extraction subjects. Pearson correlation coefficients were used to examine the correlation between tooth size and DC1 PAR score and components. ANOVA was used to determine significant differences between DC1 molar class severity groups due to tooth size.

PAGE 13

CHAPTER 3 RESULTS There were 257 study participants who had available tooth width data and initial PAR. There were more males (n=156) than females (n=101), but there were nearly equal numbers in each of the three phase I groups (bionator n=93; observation n=78; headgear n=86). The majority of the subjects had a high initial molar class severity (n=118), with less in the low (n=62) and mild (n=86) categories. The majority of the subjects were White (n=238), with less Black (n=4), other (n=2) and Hispanic (n=13) subjects. Table 3-1 shows the mean tooth width for this sample. The smallest tooth was the mandibular central incisor (5.28mm) and the largest was the maxillary central incisor (8.69mm). The greatest standard deviation was noted for the maxillary left lateral incisor. Table 3-2 depicts the mean 2-2 tooth size and DC1 PAR scores by sex. Males had significantly greater combined 2-2 tooth width for the maxillary and mandibular arches independently and together. However, there were no significant differences by sex for weighted PAR score at DC1. For females, the correlation coefficient between tooth size and DC1 PAR score and components were significant between upper 2-2 (R=0.20), lower 2-2 (R=0.27), and combined 2-2 (R=0.23) width for lower anterior alignment only at p<0.05. For males there was no significant correlation between tooth size and lower incisor alignment. However, males showed significant correlations for the following combinations: weighted PAR and upper 2-2 (R=0.28) and combined 2-2 (R=0.18); raw par and upper 2-2 (R=0.22); and overjet and upper 2-2 (R=0.23) and combined 2-2 6

PAGE 14

7 (R=0.16), all at p<0.05. There were no other significant correlations between tooth size and PAR scores and components (data not shown). Table 3-1. Mean tooth width (values in mm.) Tooth Number N Mean Std Dev Minimum Maximum UR5 247 6.65 0.50 5.34 9.77 UR4 248 6.90 0.44 5.42 8.86 UR3 241 7.82 0.47 6.54 9.31 UR2 255 6.63 0.54 5.16 8.31 UR1 257 8.65 0.55 6.36 10.05 UL1 257 8.69 0.56 7.20 10.85 UL2 257 6.67 0.59 5.09 8.89 UL3 240 7.79 0.48 6.57 9.05 UL4 248 6.91 0.42 5.79 8.71 UL5 245 6.65 0.64 5.43 10.93 LL5 240 7.16 0.53 5.84 9.09 LL4 250 7.03 0.47 5.78 8.87 LL3 248 6.79 0.42 5.71 8.87 LL2 257 5.84 0.42 4.90 7.09 LL1 257 5.29 0.34 4.25 6.13 LR1 256 5.28 0.39 4.33 8.89 LR2 257 5.84 0.36 4.97 6.90 LR3 248 6.74 0.45 5.27 8.25 LR4 251 6.98 0.51 5.25 8.69 LR5 243 7.07 0.51 5.74 8.68 Tooth number is given in Palmer notation (UR, upper right; UL, upper left; LL, lower left; LR lower right) Table 3-2. Tooth width and initial PAR by sex Male (n=156) Female (n=101) Mean SE Mean SE p-value Upper 2-2, mm. 30.93 0.16 30.05 0.19 0.0004 Lower 2-2, mm. 22.47 0.10 21.86 0.13 0.0002 Combined 2-2, mm. 53.41 0.23 51.91 0.31 <0.0001 Weighted PAR 21.13 0.51 20.57 0.63 0.49 2 sample t-test used There were no significant tooth size differences between DC1 molar class severity groups for males and females (data not shown).

PAGE 15

8 Table 3-3 shows subjects treated with extractions in any arch who completed the class II study and had casts available for measurement (n=204). Note that the values for upper arch extractions represent any subjects treated with upper extractions including those who may have been treated with lower extractions (this is true for the lower extraction data as well). Although there were no significant sex differences between the number of subjects treated by nonextraction and extraction, more males were treated with extractions, and the difference was nearly significant (p=0.053 in both arches, p=0.0710 in the upper arch). There was a significantly greater number of subjects in the phase I observation group treated by extractions in any (upper or lower) arch and the upper arch alone, but not for subjects treated with lower arch extractions. A similar pattern of significance was seen when subjects were grouped by DC7 molar class severity. Figure 3-1 shows the combined 5-5 and 2-2 tooth width by sex and extraction for class II study participants who finished the second phase of treatment and for whom values for all 20 anterior teeth were available (n=169). Males had significantly larger teeth than females (p < .001). Subjects treated with extractions had more combined tooth width than those treated without extractions, though the difference is significant only for females (p < .05). The change in mean PAR scores and components from final to recall time points is shown in Figure 3-2. The subjects represented are those who completed the study and who had models scored by the PAR index. The number of subjects that were recalled decreased as the interval from treatment completion increased. Also, not all subjects were recalled at every year for retention. Therefore, the number of subjects not only decreases in the later retention time points, but the subject pool is different at each

PAGE 16

9 retention time point. There were no significant differences between extraction and nonextraction groups at any data collection point for change in mean weighted or raw PAR, upper anterior alignment, and overjet. The nonextraction group had a significantly greater mean lower anterior alignment score change at DCR6. The nonextraction group also had a significantly greater mean overbite score change at DCR3. Table 3-3. Percent of subjects with extractions by treatment group, sex, and DC7 molar class severity Nonextraction Extraction Percent (n) Upper arch Lower arch Both arches p Total (n=204) 81% (166) 19% (38) 5%(11) 19% (38) Sex Male 77% (94) 23% (28) 7% (8) 23% (28) n.s. Female 88% (72) 12% (10) 4% (3) 12% (10) n.s. Phase I treatment group Bionator 89% (59) 11% (7) 3% (2) 11% (7) < 0.05 Observation 72% (48) 28% (19) 9% (6) 28% (19) < 0.05 Headgear 83% (59) 17% (12) 4% (3) 17% (12) < 0.05 Initial molar class severity High 74% (73) 26% (26) 4% (4) 26% (26) < 0.05 Low 90% (43) 10% (5) 2% (1) 10% (5) < 0.05 Mild 88% (50) 12% (7) 11% (6) 12% (7) < 0.05 Extraction Upper Arch = any subject with extractions in upper arch. Extraction Lower Arch = any subject with extractions in the lower arch. Extraction Both Arches = any subject with extractions in either arch. Chi-square test used.

PAGE 17

10 50.0051.0052.0053.0054.0055.0056.0057.0058.00MaleFemaleCombined 2-2 width, m m N Male Female Nonextraction 75 62 Extraction 25 7 All Subjects 100 69 Nonextraction Extraction All Patients Figure 3-1. Mean combined 2-2 tooth width by sex for extraction and nonextraction subjects (with standard error). 2 sample t-test used. *Significant difference male v. female p < .001. Significant difference (extraction v. nonextraction) p < .05.

PAGE 18

11 2a. Change in weighted PAR score from DCF0.001.002.003.004.005.006.007.008.00R1R2R3R4R5R6R7R8Weighted PAR 2b. Change in raw PAR score from DCF0.000.501.001.502.002.503.003.50R1R2R3R4R5R6R7R8Component PAR 2c. Change in anterior upper alignment from DCF0.000.200.400.600.801.001.20R1R2R3R4R5R6R7R8Upper anterior alignment 2d. Change in lower anterior alignment from DCF-0.500.000.501.001.502.00R1R2R3R4R5R6R7R8Lower anterior alignment* 2e. Change in overjet from DCF0.000.100.200.300.400.500.600.700.80R1R2R3R4R5R6R7R8Overjet 2f. Change in overbite from DCF-0.200.000.200.400.600.801.001.20R1R2R3R4R5R6R7R8Overbite* Nonextraction Extraction R1 R2 R3 R4 R5 R6 R7 R8 N (Nonext) 121 96 63 46 41 40 21 14 N (Ext) 29 16 11 7 9 10 2 2 Figure 3-2. Change from DCF in mean PAR score and components for extraction and nonextraction groups (with standard error). 2a, weighted PAR; 2b, raw PAR; 2c, upper anterior alignment; 2d, lower anterior alignment; 2e, overjet; 2f, overbite. Wilcoxon rank sum test used. *Significant (extraction v. nonextraction) at p < .05.

PAGE 19

CHAPTER 4 DISCUSSION Previous retrospective studies examined tooth size differences by comparing crowded and non-crowded dentitions. 1,2 This study, while retrospective, utilizes a subject pool treated as part of a prospective randomized controlled clinical trial. 25 Phase I treatment was determined by randomization, while phase II treatment plan was determined by using a collaborative treatment plan by sending phase II records to multiple practitioners across the country. 29 It should be noted that the extraction frequency represented here is a result of model analysis and represents actual treatment rather than the collaborative treatment plan. Our investigation of tooth size in Class II subjects had a similar outcome as previously reported studies 5-10 with respect to sex differences. Our findings showed that males had approximately 3.4 mm greater tooth mass for the 20 anterior teeth and 1.3 to 1.5mm greater tooth mass for the 8 anterior teeth. Molar class severity and DC1 PAR score did not differ by sex, suggesting that tooth size may not influence these measures. We were not able to confirm the findings of Lavelle 9 in regards to ethnic differences in tooth size due to the predominately white sample in this study. There were differences between males and females in regards to the pattern of correlation between initial PAR components and tooth size. Anterior tooth size in males significantly correlated with overjet and weighted PAR. The significant correlation in females was with lower anterior alignment. The suggestion is that larger teeth in class II children is manifested differently for boys than girls, such that boys show their arch 12

PAGE 20

13 length discrepancy with overjet, and girls with lower crowding. The correlation between lower incisor size and lower anterior alignment (R=0.27, females) is similar to the correlation between incisor size and Littles irregularity index reported for treated and untreated cases by Smith et al. 18 and to that reported by Gilmore and Little 19 for post-retention cases. However, correlations in the range or R=0.30 are of questionable clinical value. While there were no significant differences in the number of males and females requiring second phase extractions, the trend was that more males (28) than females (10) had extractions, suggesting that the greater tooth mass may be related to more males being treated with extractions. Comparing nonextraction and extraction subjects showed that subjects treated with extractions had significantly greater mean tooth mass for the 5-5 and 2-2 measurements. This comparison alone would suggest that subjects with larger teeth had more crowding and that our findings agree with those of Doris et al. 1 and Norderval et al. 2 However, only 11 of the 38 extraction subjects had extractions in both arches. With the majority of extractions being done in the upper arch, the suggestion is that the majority of extractions were done for classification and maxillary anterior retraction rather than for crowding. Furthermore, extraction frequency also showed significant differences with respect to DC7 molar class severity, with 26.3% of severe class II subjects having extractions and 11.4% of low and mild class IIs having extractions. This is also suggestive that phase II extraction decision is heavily influenced by the overall requirement for attaining a desirable finishing classification.

PAGE 21

14 The influence of phase I treatment on the frequency of extractions was significant. Those with bionator or headgear phase I treatment had significantly fewer extractions (13.9%) than the phase I observation group (28.4%). The suggestion is that phase I treatment cuts the likelihood of having extractions during phase II treatment in half. A similar study done at the University of North Carolina 30 found an extraction rate of approximately 17% in the observation group, 15% in the headgear group, and 38% in the bionator group. They noted that the difference in extraction rate approached but was not statistically significant. The extraction rates for this study do not reflect the previously reported consensus treatment plans 29 as our extraction frequency was determined by looking at post-treatment casts rather than the treatment plan. Therefore, these rates, while showing interesting trends, should be interpreted with caution as they represent the treatment preferences of a few practitioners. There was a significantly greater difference in tooth size between extraction groups for females, but not for males. With more males overall requiring extractions, less difference in tooth size between extraction and nonextraction subjects is due to a majority of subjects having extractions for classification purposes rather than for crowding. Post DCF PAR score and component change did not show any trends in statistical significance when comparing extraction and nonextraction groups. A possible explanation for this is that there is no difference in relapse between extraction and nonextraction subjects. However, different methods of retention were used for these subjects, including removable Hawleys and fixed retention. One might feel that fixed retention would prevent alignment changes. Efforts are being made to group these

PAGE 22

15 subjects by retention type to analyze relapse. However, this could be difficult due to the comparison of PAR values of subjects with fixed retention to those with Hawley retainers due to the variable compliance with Hawley retainers. Additionally, the impact of third molar status has not been examined.

PAGE 23

CHAPTER 5 CONCLUSIONS In summary, males had significantly larger teeth than females. Initial PAR score and molar classification did not differ between males and females. For males, initial weighted PAR score and overjet correlated with upper and combined upper and lower anterior tooth size, while in females showed correlation between lower anterior alignment and all measures of anterior tooth size. Tooth size was not related to initial molar class severity. During the second phase of treatment, there was a trend for more male subjects being treated with extractions during the second phase of treatment. The majority of extractions were done in the upper arch, with very few subjects having extractions in the lower arch. The difference in tooth width for females treated with extractions compared to females treated without extractions was much greater than the same difference for males. There were significant differences in the number of subjects receiving extractions when grouped by phase I treatment group and by DC7 molar class severity, with the observation group and the severe class IIs having more extractions. There were few significant differences between extraction groups with respect to PAR and component scores at the end of treatment and throughout the retention period 16

PAGE 24

LIST OF REFERENCES 1. Doris JM, Bernard BW, Kuftinec MM. A biometric study of tooth size and dental crowding. Am J Orthod 1981;79:326-336. 2. Norderval K, Wisth PJ, Boe OE. Mandibular anterior crowding in relation to tooth size and craniofacial morphology. Scand J Dent Res 1975;83:267-273. 3. Howe RP, NcNamara JA, OConner KA. An examination of dental crowding and its relationship to tooth size and arch dimension. Am J Orthod 1983;83:363-373. 4. Lundstrm A. The aetiology of crowding of the teeth (based on studies of twins and on morphological investigations) and its bearing on orthodontic treatment (expansion or extraction). Eur Orthod Soc Trans 1951;176-191. 5. Morrees CFA. The dentition of the growing child. Harvard University Press, Cambridge 1959:79-86. 6. Garn SM, Lewis AB, Kerewski RK. Sex difference in tooth size. J Dent Res 1964;43:306. 7. Beresford JS. Tooth size and class distinction. Dent Pract 1969;20: 113-120. 8. Sanin C and Savara BS. An analysis of permanent mesiodistal crown size. Am J Orthod 1971;59:488-500. 9. Lavelle CLB. Maxillary and mandibular tooth size in different racial groups and in different occlusal categories. Am J Orthod 1972;61:29-37. 10. Bishara SE, Khadavi P, Jakobsen JR. Changes in tooth sizearch length relationships from the deciduous to the permanent dentition: A longitudinal study. Am J Orthod 1995;108:607-613. 11. Osborne RH, Horowitz SL, DeGeorge FV. Genetic variations in tooth dimensions; a twin study of permanent anterior teeth. Am J Human Gen 1958;10:350-359. 12. Sperry TP, Worms FW, Isaacson RJ, Speidel TM. Tooth size discrepancy in mandibular prognathism. Am J Orthod 1977;72:183-190. 13. Araujo E and Souki M. Bolton anterior tooth size discrepancies among different malocclusion groups. Am J Orthod 2003;73:307-313. 17

PAGE 25

18 14. Ayra BS, Savara BS, Thomas D, Clarkson Q. Relation of sex and occlusion to mesiodistal tooth size. Am J Orthod 1974;66:479-486. 15. Peck S and Peck H. Crown dimensions and mandibular incisor alignment. Angle Orthod 1972;42:148-153. 16. Rhee SH and Nahm DS. Triangular-shaped incisor crowns and crowding. Am J Orthod 2000;118:624-628. 17. Shah AA, Elcock C, Brook AH. Incisor crown shape and crowding. Am J Orthod 2003;123:562-567. 18. Smith RJ, Davidson WM, Gipe DP. Incisor shape and incisor crowding: a re-evaluation of the Peck and Peck ratio. Am J Orthod 1982;82:231-235. 19. Gilmore CA and Little RM. Mandibular incisor dimensions and crowding. Am J Orthod 1984;86:493-501. 20. Glenn G, Sinclair PM, Alexander RG. Nonextraction orthodontic therapy: Post-treatment dental and skeletal stability. Am J Orthod 1987;92:321-328. 21. Little RM. The irregularity index: a quantitative score of mandibular anterior alignment. Am J Orthod 1975;68:554-563. 22. Richmond S, Shaw WC, Roberts CT, Andrews M. The development of the PAR index (Peer Assessment Rating): reliability and validity. Eur J Orthod. 1992;14:180-7. 23. Birkeland K, Furevik J, Boe OE, Wisth PJ. Evaluation of treatment and post-treatment changes by the PAR index. Eur J Orthod 1997;19:279-288. 24. Pavlow SP. Effect of early treatment on stability of occlusion in patients with a class II malocclusion [Master of Science]: University of Florida, 2005. 25. Keeling SD, Wheeler TT, King GJ, Garvan CW, Cohen DA, Cabassa S, McGorray SP, Taylor MG. Anterioposterior skeletal and dental changes after early Class II treatment with bionators and headgear. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop 1998;113:40-50. 26. Ballard ML. Asymmetry in tooth size: A factor in the etiology, diagnosis and treatment of malocclusion. Angle Orthod 1944;11:143-150. 27. Moorrees CFA and Reed RB. Biometrics of crowding and spacing of the teeth in the mandible. Am J Phys Anthropol 1954;12: 77-88. 28. Wheeler TT, McGorray SP, Dolce C, Taylor MG, King GJ. Effectiveness of early treatment of Class II malocclusion. Am J Orthod 2002;12:9-17.

PAGE 26

19 29. Aiosa, LSA. The effect of early class II bionator and headgear therapies on phase II treatment needs [Master of Science]: University of Florida, 1995. 30. Tulloch JFC, Proffit WR, Phillips C. Outcomes in a 2-phase randomized clinical trial of early Class II treatment. Am J Orthod 2004;125:657-67.

PAGE 27

BIOGRAPHICAL SKETCH Juddson Reed received his BA in chemistry from Wake Forest University in 1999. He received a DMD in 2003 and a Certificate in Orthodontics and Master of Science in dental sciences in 2006 from the University of Florida College of Dentistry. 20


Permanent Link: http://ufdc.ufl.edu/UFE0014295/00001

Material Information

Title: Relationship of Mesiodistal Tooth Size to Extraction Rate and Post-Treatment Changes in the Class II Division 1 Malocclusion
Physical Description: Mixed Material
Copyright Date: 2008

Record Information

Source Institution: University of Florida
Holding Location: University of Florida
Rights Management: All rights reserved by the source institution and holding location.
System ID: UFE0014295:00001

Permanent Link: http://ufdc.ufl.edu/UFE0014295/00001

Material Information

Title: Relationship of Mesiodistal Tooth Size to Extraction Rate and Post-Treatment Changes in the Class II Division 1 Malocclusion
Physical Description: Mixed Material
Copyright Date: 2008

Record Information

Source Institution: University of Florida
Holding Location: University of Florida
Rights Management: All rights reserved by the source institution and holding location.
System ID: UFE0014295:00001


This item has the following downloads:


Full Text












RELATIONSHIP OF MESIODISTAL TOOTH SIZE TO EXTRACTION RATE AND
POST-TREATMENT CHANGES IN THE CLASS II DIVISION 1 MALOCCLUSION















By

JUDDSON ROBERTS REED


A THESIS PRESENTED TO THE GRADUATE SCHOOL
OF THE UNIVERSITY OF FLORIDA IN PARTIAL FULFILLMENT
OF THE REQUIREMENTS FOR THE DEGREE OF
MASTERS OF SCIENCE

UNIVERSITY OF FLORIDA


2006

































Copyright 2006

by

Juddson Roberts Reed
















TABLE OF CONTENTS

page

L IS T O F T A B L E S .......... .... .... .... .. .. ......... ................................................ .. iv

LIST OF FIGURES .............. ... ................................ ......... ..v

ABSTRACT .............. .................. .......... .............. vi

CHAPTER

1 IN TR O D U C TIO N ......................................................................... .... .. ........

2 MATERIAL AND METHODS................................................... ............... 3

S am p le .......................................................................... . 3
M eth od s ........................................................................... . 3
D ata A naly sis ............................................... 4

3 R E SU L T S ................................................................ .6

4 D ISC U SSIO N ..................................................... 12

5 C O N C L U SIO N S ................................................................16

L IST O F R E FE R E N C E S ............................................................................... 17

B IO G R A PH IC A L SK E T C H ........................................................................................ 20
















LIST OF TABLES

Table page

3-1. M ean tooth w idth (values in m m .).................................................... ....................7

3-2. Tooth width and initial PAR by sex ........................................ ....................... 7

3-3. Percent of subjects with extractions by treatment group, sex, and DC7 molar
c la ss sev e rity ..............................................................................................................9
















LIST OF FIGURES


Figure page

3-1. Mean combined 2-2 tooth width by sex for extraction and nonextraction subjects .10

3-2. Change from DCF in mean PAR score and components for extraction and
nonextraction groups ...................................................... ................ ........... 11















Abstract of Thesis Presented to the Graduate School
of the University of Florida in Partial Fulfillment of the
Requirements for the Degree of Master of Science

RELATIONSHIP OF MESIODISTAL TOOTH SIZE TO EXTRACTION RATE AND
POST-TREATMENT CHANGES IN THE CLASS II DIVISION 1 MALOCCLUSION

By

Juddson Roberts Reed

May 2006

Chair: Timothy T. Wheeler
Major Department: Orthodontics

Mesiodistal tooth size has been implicated in untreated crowding and post-

treatment alignment change. The purpose of this study was to determine if tooth size is

related to malocclusion severity, extraction frequency, and post-treatment change in a

group of class II division 1 subjects treated as part of a 2-phase randomized controlled

clinical trial at the University of Florida. Included subjects were those who began the

study and had initial Peer Assessment Rating (PAR) scores (n=257) and who completed

the study and had final PAR scores (n=204). Tooth width was measured on dental casts

at the completion of treatment or at the time point closest to completion of treatment, and

extracted teeth were noted from the casts. It was shown that males had significantly

larger teeth. Initial PAR and molar class severity did not differ by sex, but tooth size was

significantly correlated in males with initial overjet (R=0.23 [upper 2-2], 0.16 [combined

2-2]) and PAR score (R=0.28 [upper 2-2], 0.18 [combined 2-2]). Tooth size had

significant correlations with lower anterior alignment for females (R=0.20 [upper 2-2],









0.27 [lower 2-2], 0.23 [combined 2-2]). Tooth size was not related to initial molar class

severity. More males were treated with second phase extractions with the majority of

extractions done in the upper arch. Females only showed significant differences in tooth

size when comparing extraction and non-extraction subjects, suggesting that females

received extractions for excess tooth mass or protrusion, and males received extractions

for classification purposes. There were no differences in post-treatment PAR score

change between extraction and non-extraction subjects.














CHAPTER 1
INTRODUCTION

Tooth size, along with available arch length and desired ultimate tooth position, is

part of the important space analysis during orthodontic diagnosis and treatment planning.

Tooth size has been studied throughout the history of orthodontics to explain pre- and

post-treatment crowding, differences in classification, and even for extraction guidelines.

A few studies have shown that larger teeth are associated with crowding.1'2

However other studies found no association between tooth size and crowding3 while

others will claim that tooth size and arch dimension have equal contributions.4 Many

authors5-10 have found males to have larger teeth than females, and ethnic tooth size

differences have been shown.9 The size of the crowns of teeth have been shown to be

linked to heredity through twin studies."1

Skeletal and dental classification have been shown to influence tooth size and

Bolton's discrepancies, class III subjects having greater differences between maxillary

and mandibular tooth size than class I and class II, which did not differ.9'12-14

Incisor shape as defined as the ratio between mesiodistal and faciolingual

dimensions15 and contact point to cervical area mesiodistal width16 are the major

determinants in lower anterior crowding of untreated arches. However, other studies

have failed to show correlation between incisor shape and crowding and have suggested

that mesiodistal width alone correlates to crowding. 17,1

Gilmore and Little19 examined the relationship between mandibular incisor

dimensions and arch alignment in 164 class I and II cases 10 years after completion of









treatment. They found a weak positive correlation between incisor dimension and

crowding. Glenn et al.20 evaluated 28 nonextraction treated cases 8 years post-retention

and found no association between mesiodistal or faciolingual incisor dimension and

pretreatment or post-treatment incisor crowding.

Multiple scoring systems have been utilized to assign quantitative descriptors to

treatment results such as Little's irregularity index21 and the PAR index.22 Birkeland et

al.23 found that pre-treatment PAR score was a good predictor for post-treatment PAR

score and long term outcome. Pavlow24 found that post-treatment PAR score and PAR

score change is not related to Phase I treatment type in a group of class II subjects treated

during a prospective clinical trial.

Given the contradiction in the literature about tooth size and crowding, we sought

to examine if this relationship existed for class II subjects. In addition, we wanted to

determine if sexual dimorphism in tooth size existed in our cohort. Finally, we wanted to

evaluate whether tooth size related to extraction rate and PAR changes during retention.














CHAPTER 2
MATERIAL AND METHODS

Sample

This study included a sample of individuals with Class II malocclusion who

participated in a prospective randomized controlled trial at the University of Florida. The

design of this study was published by Keeling et al.25 in 1998.

Methods

Tooth measurements were done on stone casts with digital calipers by one

examiner [JRR]. The mesiodistal width was measured and recorded at the contact point

for maxillary and mandibular incisors, canines, and premolars, bilaterally. Stone models

have been validated for accurate measurement by Gilmore and Little,19 and bilateral

measurements are advocated by Ballard26 due to his documentation of right-left tooth size

discrepancies. A digital caliper was oriented parallel to the occlusal plane of the teeth

and the vestibular surface of the model as per the method standardized by Moorrees and

Reed.27

Measurements were done on final models. In the case of extraction treatment, the

size of any extracted tooth was taken from models at an appropriate previous time point if

available; the teeth that were extracted were noted for use in analysis. If the final models

were not of good diagnostic value (fractured or distorted) measurements were done on

the next available retention models. Of the 312 subjects who began the study's first

phase, 257 had tooth measurements and initial PAR scores available for analysis. For

subjects who may not have completed the study, models at the latest time point available









were measured. Dental casts of diagnostic value were available for 204 of the 208

subjects who completed the study.

The measurements were summed for each subject as summed upper and lower 2nd

premolar to 2nd premolar (5-5) and summed upper and lower lateral and central incisors

(2-2) for data analysis.

Initial molar class (mild, bilateral one-half cusp; moderate, 1 side three-fourths

cusp; severe, 1 side full cusp) was used to grade the severity of the class II

malocclusion.28

Peer assessment rating (PAR) scores were used to assess post-treatment stability.

The American weighted, raw unweighted, and component (upper and lower alignment,

overjet, and overbite) scores were used as stability variables. To quantify post-treatment

stability, the difference between PAR scores and components at DCF and DCR was

calculated as ([PAR score change] = [PAR score @ DCR1,2,3...] [PAR score @

DCF]).

Data Analysis

To determine examiner reliability, tooth width of ten randomly chosen subjects'

casts was measured twice two weeks apart. For each tooth measured, the difference

between the two measurement time points was averaged among the ten subjects. Mean

difference ranged from 0.10mm for the lower right canine to 0.20 for upper right lateral

incisor.

Chi-square test was used to compare the number of individuals with and without

extractions by phase I treatment group, sex, and initial molar class severity.

Combined tooth width between male and females and between extraction and

non-extraction subjects was compared with a 2 sample t-test.






5


Wilcoxon rank sum was used to compare combined tooth size and PAR score at

DC1 by sex. It was also used to compare PAR score components and PAR score

component change between extraction and non-extraction subjects.

Pearson correlation coefficients were used to examine the correlation between

tooth size and DC 1 PAR score and components.

ANOVA was used to determine significant differences between DC1 molar class

severity groups due to tooth size.














CHAPTER 3
RESULTS

There were 257 study participants who had available tooth width data and initial

PAR. There were more males (n=156) than females (n=101), but there were nearly equal

numbers in each of the three phase I groups (bionator n=93; observation n=78; headgear

n=86). The majority of the subjects had a high initial molar class severity (n= 18), with

less in the low (n=62) and mild (n=86) categories. The majority of the subjects were

White (n=238), with less Black (n=4), other (n=2) and Hispanic (n=13) subjects.

Table 3-1 shows the mean tooth width for this sample. The smallest tooth was the

mandibular central incisor (5.28mm) and the largest was the maxillary central incisor

(8.69mm). The greatest standard deviation was noted for the maxillary left lateral

incisor.

Table 3-2 depicts the mean 2-2 tooth size and DC1 PAR scores by sex. Males had

significantly greater combined 2-2 tooth width for the maxillary and mandibular arches

independently and together. However, there were no significant differences by sex for

weighted PAR score at DC1. For females, the correlation coefficient between tooth size

and DC1 PAR score and components were significant between upper 2-2 (R=0.20), lower

2-2 (R=0.27), and combined 2-2 (R=0.23) width for lower anterior alignment only at

p<0.05. For males there was no significant correlation between tooth size and lower

incisor alignment. However, males showed significant correlations for the following

combinations: weighted PAR and upper 2-2 (R=0.28) and combined 2-2 (R=0.18); raw

par and upper 2-2 (R=0.22); and overjet and upper 2-2 (R=0.23) and combined 2-2









(R=0.16), all at p<0.05. There were no other significant correlations between tooth size

and PAR scores and components (data not shown).


Table 3-1. Mean tooth width (values in mm.)
Tooth Number N Mean Std Dev Minimum Maximum
UR5 247 6.65 0.50 5.34 9.77
UR4 248 6.90 0.44 5.42 8.86
UR3 241 7.82 0.47 6.54 9.31
UR2 255 6.63 0.54 5.16 8.31
UR1 257 8.65 0.55 6.36 10.05
UL1 257 8.69 0.56 7.20 10.85
UL2 257 6.67 0.59 5.09 8.89
UL3 240 7.79 0.48 6.57 9.05
UL4 248 6.91 0.42 5.79 8.71
UL5 245 6.65 0.64 5.43 10.93

LL5 240 7.16 0.53 5.84 9.09
LL4 250 7.03 0.47 5.78 8.87
LL3 248 6.79 0.42 5.71 8.87
LL2 257 5.84 0.42 4.90 7.09
LL1 257 5.29 0.34 4.25 6.13
LR1 256 5.28 0.39 4.33 8.89
LR2 257 5.84 0.36 4.97 6.90
LR3 248 6.74 0.45 5.27 8.25
LR4 251 6.98 0.51 5.25 8.69
LR5 243 7.07 0.51 5.74 8.68


Tooth number is given in Palmer notation
left; LR lower right)


(UR, upper right; UL, uppe


r left; LL, lower


Table 3-2. Tooth width and initial PAR by sex
Male (n=156)
Mean SE
Upper 2-2, mm. 30.93 0.16
Lower 2-2, mm. 22.47 0.10
Combined 2-2, mm. 53.41 0.23


Female (n=101)
Mean SE
30.05 0.19
21.86 0.13
51.91 0.31


Weighted PAR
2 sample t-test used


21.13 0.51


20.57


0.63


0.49


There were no significant tooth size differences between DC 1 molar class severity


groups for males and females (data not shown).


p-value
0.0004
0.0002
<0.0001









Table 3-3 shows subjects treated with extractions in any arch who completed the

class II study and had casts available for measurement (n=204). Note that the values for

upper arch extractions represent any subjects treated with upper extractions including

those who may have been treated with lower extractions (this is true for the lower

extraction data as well). Although there were no significant sex differences between the

number of subjects treated by nonextraction and extraction, more males were treated with

extractions, and the difference was nearly significant (p=0.053 in both arches, p=0.0710

in the upper arch). There was a significantly greater number of subjects in the phase I

observation group treated by extractions in any (upper or lower) arch and the upper arch

alone, but not for subjects treated with lower arch extractions. A similar pattern of

significance was seen when subjects were grouped by DC7 molar class severity.

Figure 3-1 shows the combined 5-5 and 2-2 tooth width by sex and extraction for

class II study participants who finished the second phase of treatment and for whom

values for all 20 anterior teeth were available (n=169). Males had significantly larger

teeth than females (p < .001). Subjects treated with extractions had more combined tooth

width than those treated without extractions, though the difference is significant only for

females (p < .05).

The change in mean PAR scores and components from final to recall time points is

shown in Figure 3-2. The subjects represented are those who completed the study and

who had models scored by the PAR index. The number of subjects that were recalled

decreased as the interval from treatment completion increased. Also, not all subjects

were recalled at every year for retention. Therefore, the number of subjects not only

decreases in the later retention time points, but the subject pool is different at each









retention time point. There were no significant differences between extraction and

nonextraction groups at any data collection point for change in mean weighted or raw

PAR, upper anterior alignment, and overjet. The nonextraction group had a significantly

greater mean lower anterior alignment score change at DCR6. The nonextraction group

also had a significantly greater mean overbite score change at DCR3.

Table 3-3. Percent of subjects with extractions by treatment group, sex, and DC7 molar
class severity
Nonextraction Extraction
Percent (n) Upper arch Lower arch Both arches p
Total
(n=204) 81% (166) 19% (38) 5%(11) 19% (38)

Sex
Male 77% (94) 23% (28) 7% (8) 23% (28) n.s.
Female 88% (72) 12% (10) 4% (3) 12% (10) n.s.

Phase I treatment
group
Bionator 89% (59) 11% (7) 3% (2) 11% (7) < 0.05
Observation 72% (48) 28% (19) 9% (6) 28% (19) < 0.05
Headgear 83% (59) 17% (12) 4% (3) 17% (12) < 0.05

Initial molar class severity
High 74% (73) 26% (26) 4% (4) 26% (26) < 0.05
Low 90% (43) 10% (5) 2% (1) 10% (5) < 0.05
Mild 88% (50) 12% (7) 11% (6) 12% (7) < 0.05
Extraction Upper Arch = any subject with extractions in upper arch.


Extraction Lower Arch
Extraction Both Arches
Chi-square test used.


any subject with extractions in the lower arch.
=any subject with extractions in either arch.







10



5s 00 N Male Female
57 0oo Nonextraction 75 62
E 560 Extraction 25 7
56 00 All Subjects 100 69
55s00oo
S5400
530 Nonextraction
52 Extraction

51 00oo All Patients

Male Female

Figure 3-1. Mean combined 2-2 tooth width by sex for extraction and nonextraction
subjects (with standard error).
2 sample t-test used. *Significant difference male v. female p < .001. tSignificant
difference (extraction v. nonextraction) p < .05.













2b. Change in raw PAR score from DCF


2d. Change in lower anterior alignment from DCF


* ~ I


-- Nonextraction
........ Extraction
R1 R2 R3 R4 R5 R6 R7 R8
N (Nonext) 121 96 63 46 41 40 21 14
N (Ext) 29 16 11 7 9 10 2 2


Figure 3-2. Change from DCF in mean PAR score and components for extraction and
nonextraction groups (with standard error). 2a, weighted PAR; 2b, raw PAR; 2c, upper
anterior alignment; 2d, lower anterior alignment; 2e, overjet; 2f, overbite.
Wilcoxon rank sum test used. *Significant (extraction v. nonextraction) at p < .05.


2a Change in weighted PAR score from DCF


2c Change in antenor upper alignment from F


2e change n overjet from DCF


2f Change in overbite rom DCF














CHAPTER 4
DISCUSSION

Previous retrospective studies examined tooth size differences by comparing

crowded and non-crowded dentitions.1'2 This study, while retrospective, utilizes a subject

pool treated as part of a prospective randomized controlled clinical trial.25 Phase I

treatment was determined by randomization, while phase II treatment plan was

determined by using a collaborative treatment plan by sending phase II records to

multiple practitioners across the country.29 It should be noted that the extraction

frequency represented here is a result of model analysis and represents actual treatment

rather than the collaborative treatment plan.

Our investigation of tooth size in Class II subjects had a similar outcome as

previously reported studies5-10 with respect to sex differences. Our findings showed that

males had approximately 3.4 mm greater tooth mass for the 20 anterior teeth and 1.3 to

1.5mm greater tooth mass for the 8 anterior teeth. Molar class severity and DC 1 PAR

score did not differ by sex, suggesting that tooth size may not influence these measures.

We were not able to confirm the findings of Lavelle9 in regards to ethnic differences in

tooth size due to the predominately white sample in this study.

There were differences between males and females in regards to the pattern of

correlation between initial PAR components and tooth size. Anterior tooth size in males

significantly correlated with overjet and weighted PAR. The significant correlation in

females was with lower anterior alignment. The suggestion is that larger teeth in class II

children is manifested differently for boys than girls, such that boys show their arch









length discrepancy with overjet, and girls with lower crowding. The correlation between

lower incisor size and lower anterior alignment (R=0.27, females) is similar to the

correlation between incisor size and Little's irregularity index reported for treated and

untreated cases by Smith et al.18 and to that reported by Gilmore and Little19 for post-

retention cases. However, correlations in the range or R=0.30 are of questionable clinical

value.

While there were no significant differences in the number of males and females

requiring second phase extractions, the trend was that more males (28) than females (10)

had extractions, suggesting that the greater tooth mass may be related to more males

being treated with extractions.

Comparing nonextraction and extraction subjects showed that subjects treated with

extractions had significantly greater mean tooth mass for the 5-5 and 2-2 measurements.

This comparison alone would suggest that subjects with larger teeth had more crowding

and that our findings agree with those of Doris et al.1 and Norderval et al.2 However,

only 11 of the 38 extraction subjects had extractions in both arches. With the majority of

extractions being done in the upper arch, the suggestion is that the majority of extractions

were done for classification and maxillary anterior retraction rather than for crowding.

Furthermore, extraction frequency also showed significant differences with respect

to DC7 molar class severity, with 26.3% of severe class II subjects having extractions and

11.4% of low and mild class IIs having extractions. This is also suggestive that phase II

extraction decision is heavily influenced by the overall requirement for attaining a

desirable finishing classification.









The influence of phase I treatment on the frequency of extractions was significant.

Those with bionator or headgear phase I treatment had significantly fewer extractions

(13.9%) than the phase I observation group (28.4%). The suggestion is that phase I

treatment cuts the likelihood of having extractions during phase II treatment in half. A

similar study done at the University of North Carolina30 found an extraction rate of

approximately 17% in the observation group, 15% in the headgear group, and 38% in the

bionator group. They noted that the difference in extraction rate approached but was not

statistically significant.

The extraction rates for this study do not reflect the previously reported consensus

treatment plans29 as our extraction frequency was determined by looking at post-

treatment casts rather than the treatment plan. Therefore, these rates, while showing

interesting trends, should be interpreted with caution as they represent the treatment

preferences of a few practitioners.

There was a significantly greater difference in tooth size between extraction groups

for females, but not for males. With more males overall requiring extractions, less

difference in tooth size between extraction and nonextraction subjects is due to a majority

of subjects having extractions for classification purposes rather than for crowding.

Post DCF PAR score and component change did not show any trends in statistical

significance when comparing extraction and nonextraction groups. A possible

explanation for this is that there is no difference in relapse between extraction and

nonextraction subjects. However, different methods of retention were used for these

subjects, including removable Hawleys and fixed retention. One might feel that fixed

retention would prevent alignment changes. Efforts are being made to group these






15


subjects by retention type to analyze relapse. However, this could be difficult due to the

comparison of PAR values of subjects with fixed retention to those with Hawley retainers

due to the variable compliance with Hawley retainers. Additionally, the impact of third

molar status has not been examined.














CHAPTER 5
CONCLUSIONS

In summary, males had significantly larger teeth than females. Initial PAR score

and molar classification did not differ between males and females. For males, initial

weighted PAR score and overjet correlated with upper and combined upper and lower

anterior tooth size, while in females showed correlation between lower anterior alignment

and all measures of anterior tooth size. Tooth size was not related to initial molar class

severity.

During the second phase of treatment, there was a trend for more male subjects

being treated with extractions during the second phase of treatment. The majority of

extractions were done in the upper arch, with very few subjects having extractions in the

lower arch. The difference in tooth width for females treated with extractions compared

to females treated without extractions was much greater than the same difference for

males. There were significant differences in the number of subjects receiving extractions

when grouped by phase I treatment group and by DC7 molar class severity, with the

observation group and the severe class IIs having more extractions. There were few

significant differences between extraction groups with respect to PAR and component

scores at the end of treatment and throughout the retention period















LIST OF REFERENCES


1. Doris JM, Bernard BW, Kuftinec MM. A biometric study of tooth size and dental
crowding. Am J Orthod 1981;79:326-336.

2. Norderval K, Wisth PJ, Boe OE. Mandibular anterior crowding in relation to tooth
size and craniofacial morphology. Scand J Dent Res 1975;83:267-273.

3. Howe RP, NcNamara JA, O'Conner KA. An examination of dental crowding and
its relationship to tooth size and arch dimension. Am J Orthod 1983;83:363-373.

4. Lundstrom A. The aetiology of crowding of the teeth (based on studies of twins and
on morphological investigations) and its bearing on orthodontic treatment
(expansion or extraction). Eur Orthod Soc Trans 1951; 176-191.

5. Morrees CFA. The dentition of the growing child. Harvard University Press,
Cambridge 1959:79-86.

6. Garn SM, Lewis AB, Kerewski RK. Sex difference in tooth size. J Dent Res
1964;43:306.

7. Beresford JS. Tooth size and class distinction. Dent Pract 1969;20: 113-120.

8. Sanin C and Savara BS. An analysis of permanent mesiodistal crown size. Am J
Orthod 1971;59:488-500.

9. Lavelle CLB. Maxillary and mandibular tooth size in different racial groups and in
different occlusal categories. Am J Orthod 1972;61:29-37.

10. Bishara SE, Khadavi P, Jakobsen JR. Changes in tooth size-arch length
relationships from the deciduous to the permanent dentition: A longitudinal study.
Am J Orthod 1995;108:607-613.

11. Osborne RH, Horowitz SL, DeGeorge FV. Genetic variations in tooth dimensions;
a twin study of permanent anterior teeth. Am J Human Gen 1958;10:350-359.

12. Sperry TP, Worms FW, Isaacson RJ, Speidel TM. Tooth size discrepancy in
mandibular prognathism. Am J Orthod 1977;72:183-190.

13. Araujo E and Souki M. Bolton anterior tooth size discrepancies among different
malocclusion groups. Am J Orthod 2003;73:307-313.









14. Ayra BS, Savara BS, Thomas D, Clarkson Q. Relation of sex and occlusion to
mesiodistal tooth size. Am J Orthod 1974;66:479-486.

15. Peck S and Peck H. Crown dimensions and mandibular incisor alignment. Angle
Orthod 1972;42:148-153.

16. Rhee SH and Nahm DS. Triangular-shaped incisor crowns and crowding. Am J
Orthod 2000; 118:624-628.

17. Shah AA, Elcock C, Brook AH. Incisor crown shape and crowding. Am J Orthod
2003;123:562-567.

18. Smith RJ, Davidson WM, Gipe DP. Incisor shape and incisor crowding: a re-
evaluation of the Peck and Peck ratio. Am J Orthod 1982;82:231-235.

19. Gilmore CA and Little RM. Mandibular incisor dimensions and crowding. Am J
Orthod 1984;86:493-501.

20. Glenn G, Sinclair PM, Alexander RG. Nonextraction orthodontic therapy: Post-
treatment dental and skeletal stability. Am J Orthod 1987;92:321-328.

21. Little RM. The irregularity index: a quantitative score of mandibular anterior
alignment. Am J Orthod 1975;68:554-563.

22. Richmond S, Shaw WC, Roberts CT, Andrews M. The development of the PAR
index (Peer Assessment Rating): reliability and validity. Eur J Orthod.
1992; 14:180-7.

23. Birkeland K, Furevik J, Boe OE, Wisth PJ. Evaluation of treatment and post-
treatment changes by the PAR index. Eur J Orthod 1997; 19:279-288.

24. Pavlow SP. Effect of early treatment on stability of occlusion in patients with a
class II malocclusion [Master of Science]: University of Florida, 2005.

25. Keeling SD, Wheeler TT, King GJ, Garvan CW, Cohen DA, Cabassa S, McGorray
SP, Taylor MG. Anterioposterior skeletal and dental changes after early Class II
treatment with bionators and headgear. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop
1998;113:40-50.

26. Ballard ML. Asymmetry in tooth size: A factor in the etiology, diagnosis and
treatment of malocclusion. Angle Orthod 1944;11:143-150.

27. Moorrees CFA and Reed RB. Biometrics of crowding and spacing of the teeth in
the mandible. Am J Phys Anthropol 1954;12: 77-88.

28. Wheeler TT, McGorray SP, Dolce C, Taylor MG, King GJ. Effectiveness of early
treatment of Class II malocclusion. Am J Orthod 2002; 12:9-17.






19


29. Aiosa, LSA. The effect of early class II bionator and headgear therapies on phase II
treatment needs [Master of Science]: University of Florida, 1995.

30. Tulloch JFC, Proffit WR, Phillips C. Outcomes in a 2-phase randomized clinical
trial of early Class II treatment. Am J Orthod 2004; 125:657-67.















BIOGRAPHICAL SKETCH

Juddson Reed received his BA in chemistry from Wake Forest University in 1999.

He received a DMD in 2003 and a Certificate in Orthodontics and Master of Science in

dental sciences in 2006 from the University of Florida College of Dentistry.