ORIGINAL ARTICLE

Applicability of the Moyers mixed dentition

probability tables and new prediction aids for
a contemporary population in India
Nebu Ivan Philip,a Manisha Prabhakar,b Deepak Arora,c and Saroj Choprad
Pondicherry, Muktsar, and Ludhiana, India

Introduction: The Moyers mixed dentition space analysis method is among the most commonly used in clin-
ical practice for detecting tooth size-arch length discrepancies. In view of reported secular trends, racial, and
sex differences in tooth sizes, the purposes of this study were to evaluate the applicability of Moyers
probability tables in a contemporary orthodontic population of India and to formulate more accurate mixed
dentition prediction aids. Methods: Odontometric data were collected from 300 male and 300 female subjects
of Indian descent, who had fully erupted mandibular permanent incisors and maxillary and mandibular canines
and premolars. We measured the mesiodistal crown widths with vernier scale dial calipers. The odontometric
values obtained were then subjected to statistical and linear regression analysis. Results: All tooth groups
showed significant differences (P \0.001) between mesiodistal widths of male and female subjects. Regres-
sion equations for the maxillary arch (males, Y 5 7.15 1 0.67X; females, Y 5 7.44 1 0.65X) and the mandibular
arch (males, Y 5 5.55 1 0.71X; females, Y 5 6.15 1 0.67X) were used to develop new probability tables on the
Moyers pattern. Significant differences (P \0.05) were found between our predicted widths and the Moyers
tables at almost all percentile levels, including the recommended 75% and 50% levels. Conclusions: We
believe that these new prediction aids could be considered for a more precise mixed dentition space analysis
in Indian children. (Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop 2010;138:339-45)

E
very dentist who provides care for children and
adolescents should be able to properly assess
and manage their developing occlusions.1
Many malocclusions, especially crowding problems,
originate in the mixed dentition period.2 During this
critical period, the orthodontist or pediatric dentist is of-
ten asked to provide an accurate diagnosis of any devel-
oping malocclusions and an opinion on its effects, if
any, on the ultimate occlusal status of the permanent
dentition. One condition requiring early diagnosis and
treatment is when there is a disparity between the space
available in the dental arch and the space needed for the
a
Assistant professor, Department of Pediatric and Preventive Dentistry, Indira
Gandhi Institute of Dental Sciences, Pondicherry, India.
b
Professor and head, Department of Pediatric and Preventive Dentistry, Desh
Bhagat Dental College, Muktsar, India.
c
Professor and head, Department of Orthodontics and Dentofacial Orthopedics,
Christian Dental College, Ludhiana, India.
d
Professor and head, Department of Pediatric and Preventive Dentistry,
Christian Dental College, Ludhiana, India.
The authors report no commercial, proprietary, or financial interest in the
products or companies described in this article.
Reprint requests to: Nebu Ivan Philip, Department of Pediatric & Preventive
Dentistry, Indira Gandhi Institute of Dental Sciences, Mahatma Gandhi Medical
College & Hospital Campus, Pondicherry, India 607402; e-mail, drnebu@
yahoo.com.
Submitted, July 2008; revised and accepted, September 2008.
0889-5406/$36.00
Copyright Ó 2010 by the American Association of Orthodontists.
doi:10.1016/j.ajodo.2008.09.035
proper alignment of the unerupted permanent canines
and premolars. In planning the management of these pa-
tients, the deficit of arch space must be predicted early,
and the indicated preventive or interceptive procedures
instituted. The mixed dentition space analysis (MDSA)
is a fundamental part of an early orthodontic assessment
and helps in determining any tooth size-arch length dis-
crepancy. If a discrepancy is present, MDSA will be
a useful diagnostic aid in evaluating whether the treat-
ment plan will involve serial extractions, guidance of
eruption, space regaining, proximal stripping, space
maintenance, or just periodic observation of the patient.
To perform an accurate MDSA, it is vital to correctly
predict the mesiodistal crown widths of the unerupted
permanent canines and premolars. Two broad approaches
have been used for this prediction: radiographic3-9 and
nonradiographic methods.10-13 Radiographic methods
require measurements of undistorted long-cone radio-
graphic images of erupted and unerupted teeth, and
also of erupted teeth on study casts. The mesiodistal
widths of the unerupted canines and premolars are then
estimated from multiple regression equations or graphs.
Such complex methods might discourage their routine
use by clinicians. Moyers11 proposed a simpler nonradio-
graphic MDSA method in which the mesiodistal crown
widths of the unerupted permanent canines and premo-
lars of both arches can be predicted from the combined
339
340 Philip et al American Journal of Orthodontics and Dentofacial Orthopedics
September 2010

mesiodistal crown widths of the 4 mandibular permanent Table I. Mesiodistal crown widths from various studies
incisors by using probability tables. of different racial groups
The Moyers probability tables were developed at the Sample Mean SD
University of Michigan based on odontometric data of Study Sex size (n) Arch (mm) (mm)
American white subjects of Northwestern European de-
scent.11 The accuracy of these probability tables is ques- Asian populations
Jaroontham and M 215 LI 23.89 1.37
tionable when applied to population groups other than Godfrey16 (Thai) UCPM 23.16 1.03
white people, because it has been well established in LCPM 22.23 1.04
the literature that tooth sizes vary considerably between F 215 LI 22.23 1.26
racial groups.14-21 Table I shows mesiodistal crown UCPM 22.64 1.00
LCPM 21.77 1.02
widths obtained from odontometric studies of various
Priya and Munshi17 M 200 LI 24.88 0.36
population groups. In addition, a few investigators noted (South India) UCPM 23.32 0.39
a secular trend toward increased tooth sizes with suc- LCPM 21.91 0.45
ceeding generations.22-24 This implies that values used F 300 LI 24.20 0.34
in probability tables or prediction equations developed UCPM 22.71 0.38
LCPM 21.41 0.43
from odontometric data of earlier generations might
Lee-Chan et al18 M, F 201 LI 23.40 1.19
underestimate the tooth sizes of present-day children. (Asian UCPM 22.93 1.17
Accordingly, the objectives of this study were to formu- Americans) LCPM 22.03 1.12
late new prediction aids (probability tables and predic- This study M 300 LI 24.03 1.05
tion equations) that can enable a more accurate (Punjab, India) UCPM 23.23 1.07
MDSA in Indian children, and to evaluate the applica- LCPM 22.50 1.09
F 300 LI 23.48 0.93
bility of Moyers probability tables in a contemporary UCPM 22.75 0.94
Indian population. LCPM 21.99 0.95
African populations
Schrimer and M 100 LI 23.92 1.90
MATERIAL AND METHODS Wiltshire19 UCPM 23.22 1.11
(South African LCPM 23.45 1.37
Dental study casts of 300 male and 300 female sub- blacks) F 100 LI 23.66 1.59
jects were selected for this study from a contemporary UCPM 22.28 1.28
population of India. The casts were made from dental LCPM 22.20 1.24
impressions of children in various schools of Punjab Diagne et al20 M 25 LI 23.71 1.25
state in India, after approval was obtained from their (Senegalese) UCPM 22.28 1.28
LCPM 22.20 1.24
parents and teachers. The criteria for sample selection F 25 LI 22.86 1.25
were the following. UCPM 22.70 1.01
LCPM 22.20 1.22
1. The mandibular permanent incisors, the mandibu- Ferguson et al21 M, F 105 LI 23.52 1.79
lar and maxillary permanent canines, and the man- (African UCPM 22.40 1.27
dibular and maxillary premolars were fully erupted. Americans) LCPM 22.24 1.31
2. There was no obvious loss of tooth material mesio- White populations
Tanaka and M, F 506 LI 23.43 1.35
distally as a result of caries, fractures, congenital
Johnston12 (North UCPM 22.27 1.09
defects, or interproximal attrition. Americans) LCPM 21.76 1.12
3. The dental impressions and study casts were high
quality and free of distortions. LI, Lower incisors; UCPM, upper canines and premolars; LCPM,
lower canines and premolars; M, male; F, female.
4. The subjects had no previous history of orthodontic
treatment.
5. All subjects had a similar ethnic background
canine-premolar segment for each value of the com-
(Punjabi).
bined mandibular incisors.
The teeth measured were the mandibular central and Measurements of the mesiodistal crown widths of
lateral permanent incisors, the mandibular and maxil- the mandibular and maxillary teeth were made by using
lary permanent canines, and the first and second premo- a dial caliper with a vernier scale, calibrated to the near-
lars of both arches. The values obtained for the right and est 0.05 mm (Matsui Dial Caliper, Mitutoyo, Kawasaki,
left canine-premolar segments in each arch were aver- Japan). The tips of the calipers were precision engi-
aged, so that there would be 1 value for the mandibular neered to ensure the greatest accuracy while measuring
canine-premolar segment and 1 value for the maxillary the various tooth groups.
American Journal of Orthodontics and Dentofacial Orthopedics Philip et al 341
Volume 138, Number 3

Table II. Descriptive statistics for the combined mesio- Table III. Regression parameters for prediction of mesio-
distal widths of the 3 tooth groups distal widths of canine-premolar segments
Tooth group Sex Range (mm) Mean 6 SD (mm) t value Constants
Canine-premolar SEE
Mandibular incisors M 20.65-27.50 24.03 6 1.05 6.92* Sex segment r a b r2 (mm)
F 20.40-26.15 23.48 6 0.93
Maxillary M 20.15-26.85 23.23 6 1.07 5.84* Male Maxillary 0.66 7.145 0.669 0.43 0.81
canine-premolar F 20.05-26.25 22.75 6 0.94 Mandibular 0.68 5.548 0.706 0.46 0.80
segment Female Maxillary 0.65 7.444 0.652 0.43 0.72
Mandibular M 19.40-26.40 22.50 6 1.09 6.11* Mandibular 0.67 6.154 0.674 0.44 0.71
canine- premolar F 19.50-25.70 21.99 6 0.95
r, Correlation; a and b, regression constants; r2, coefficient of determi-
segment
nation; SEE, standard error of estimate.
M, Male; F, female.
*P \0.001.

Table IV. Prediction equations from various studies at

A standardized method proposed by Moorrees and
Reed25 was used to measure the mesiodistal crown the 50th percentile
widths. The greatest mesiodistal crown width of each Prediction
tooth was measured between its contact points, with Study Sex Arch equations Y 5
the sliding caliper placed parallel to the occlusal and This study M
Maxillary 7.15 1 0.67(X)
vestibular surfaces. This method was reported to be (Punjab, India) Mandibular 5.55 1 0.71(X)
highly repeatable and accurate for measuring mesiodis- F Maxillary 7.44 1 0.65(X)
tal crown widths by Doris et al.26 Mandibular 6.15 1 0.67(X)
Moyers11 M Maxillary 9.73 1 0.51(X)
Measurement reliability was checked according to
(North American whites)* Mandibular 10.79 1 0.45(X)
a method suggested by Lundstr} om,27where the same F Maxillary 14.17 1 0.28(X)
investigator measures all casts and then remeasures cer- Mandibular 8.85 1 0.52(X)
tain randomly selected casts. The coefficient of test-test Moyers34 M, F Maxillary 9.23 1 0.55(X)
reliability on 120 such randomly selected casts was cal- (North American whites)* Mandibular 7.82 1 0.59(X)
Tanaka and Johnston12 M, F Maxillary 10.41 1 0.51(X)
culated and found to be r .0.95, confirming the reliabil-
(North American whites) Mandibular 9.18 1 0.52(X)
ity of the measurements. Diagne et al20 M Maxillary 9.60 1 0.55(X)
(Senegalese) Mandibular 5.54 1 0.72(X)
RESULTS F Maxillary 13.77 1 0.35(X)
Mandibular 8.74 1 0.56(X)
Descriptive statistics for the 3 tooth groups mea- Lee-Chan et al18 M, F Maxillary 8.19 1 0.63(X)
sured in the study (mandibular permanent incisors, (Asian Americans) Mandibular 7.46 1 0.62(X)
mandibular canine-premolar segment, and maxillary Jaroontham and Godfrey16 M Maxillary 13.36 1 0.41(X)
canine-premolar segment) are presented in Table II for (Thai) Mandibular 11.92 1 0.43(X)
the sexes separately. Student t tests comparing the me- F Maxillary 11.16 1 0.49(X)
Mandibular 9.49 1 0.53(X)
siodistal crown widths of male and female subjects
showed highly significant differences (P \0.001) in Y, Mesiodistal width of canine-premolar segment; X, mesiodistal width
all 3 tooth groups, with males having larger teeth. of the 4 mandibular incisors.
*Regression equations derived from Moyers tables at the 50th percentile.
Coefficients of correlation were calculated and stan-
dard linear regression equations of the form Y5 a 1
b(X) derived, to evaluate the relationship between the mesiodistal crown widths of the 4 mandibular perma-
combined mesiodistal widths of the mandibular perma- nent incisors are known (X). These new prediction
nent incisors (X) and the mesiodistal widths of the equations (after approximation) are shown in Table IV,
canine-premolar segments (Y) of each arch. Table III re- along with prediction equations from some other stud-
cords the various regression parameters: correlation co- ies. The regression equations derived in this study
efficient, regression constants (a is the y-intercept, and were used to prepare new probability tables on the
b is the slope of the regression line), coefficient of deter- Moyers pattern and are presented in Tables V and VI.
mination, and standard errors of estimate (SEE). To evaluate the applicability of the Moyers proba-
This regression analysis was used to formulate new bility tables in our sample, the odontometric values
prediction equations that can be used clinically to we obtained were statistically compared with predicted
predict the mesiodistal crown widths of the unerupted values from Moyers tables at the 5% to the 95% confi-
canine premolar segments (Y) when the combined dence levels by using the Wilcoxon signed rank sum
342 Philip et al American Journal of Orthodontics and Dentofacial Orthopedics
September 2010

Table V. Probability tables for predicting the mesiodistal widths of unerupted maxillary canines and premolars
Percentile 19.5 20 20.5 21 21.5 22 22.5 23 23.5 24 24.5 25 25.5

Males
95% 20.77 21.10 21.44 21.77 22.11 22.44 22.78 23.11 23.44 23.78 24.11 24.45 24.78
85% 20.75 21.09 21.42 21.76 22.09 22.43 22.76 23.10 23.43 23.76 24.10 24.43 24.77
75% 20.44 20.77 21.11 21.44 21.78 22.11 22.44 22.78 23.11 23.45 23.78 24.12 24.45
65% 20.39 20.70 20.96 21.29 21.63 21.96 22.30 22.63 22.96 23.30 23.63 23.97 24.30
50% 20.22 20.55 20.89 21.22 21.56 21.89 22.23 22.56 22.90 23.23 23.57 23.90 24.24
35% 20.14 20.41 20.77 21.12 21.35 21.68 22.04 22.35 22.65 22.96 23.25 23.60 23.92
25% 20.06 20.32 20.64 20.95 21.29 21.58 21.91 22.27 22.59 22.89 23.19 23.51 23.88
15% 19.87 20.21 20.49 20.82 21.18 21.48 21.84 22.17 22.49 22.83 23.16 23.54 23.85
5% 19.80 20.13 20.46 20.80 21.13 21.44 21.80 22.14 22.47 22.81 23.14 23.48 23.81
Females
95% 20.61 20.94 21.27 21.59 21.94 22.27 22.59 22.92 23.24 23.57 23.90 24.22 24.55
85% 20.58 20.96 21.29 21.47 21.92 22.24 22.57 22.89 23.22 23.55 23.87 24.20 24.52
75% 20.39 20.72 21.05 21.37 21.70 22.02 22.35 22.68 23.00 23.33 23.65 23.98 24.31
65% 20.30 20.62 20.89 21.15 21.56 21.83 22.15 22.56 22.90 23.23 23.56 23.88 24.21
50% 20.12 20.44 20.76 21.09 21.42 21.74 22.07 22.39 22.72 23.04 23.37 23.69 24.01
35% 20.07 20.34 20.69 20.98 21.33 21.60 21.91 22.25 22.58 22.91 23.17 23.48 23.81
25% 19.99 20.26 20.51 20.83 21.06 21.46 21.84 22.09 22.42 22.73 23.04 23.36 23.66
15% 19.72 20.05 20.38 20.70 21.03 21.35 21.68 22.01 22.33 22.66 22.98 23.31 23.63
5% 19.63 19.96 20.29 20.61 20.94 21.26 21.59 21.92 22.24 22.57 22.89 23.22 23.54

test. Significant differences (P \0.05) were found at all
percentile confidence levels, except at 95% and 85% for
males in both arches; there were significant differences
for females (P \0.05) at all percentile levels, except at
95% and 85% in the mandibular arch and at 95% in the
maxillary arch (Table VII).
DISCUSSION
The most important factors in the reliability of
a study based on odontometric data are the characteris-
tics of the sample chosen. The sample representation of
this study was considered acceptable because of the
large sample size (300 subjects of each sex) and the
uniform ethnicity (Punjabi).
Definite racial and ethnic differences in tooth sizes
have been highlighted in several population studies14-21
(Table I). Nanda and Chawla28 found a significant
disparity between the leeway space of North Indian chil-
dren and the leeway space that was reported by Nance29
for American children. In another odontometric study
with North Indian samples, Singh and Nanda30 derived
a mixed dentition prediction scale that they found to be
different from prediction tables developed by Ballard
and Wylie10 for American white people and suggested
that this could be due to racial tooth-size differences.
The reasons for the tooth-size variations in different ra-
cial groups have not been clearly elucidated, but, obvi-
ously, genetic factors play a major role, and nutrition
and environmental exposure during tooth development
might have secondary roles.31 Whatever the reasons
for the racial tooth-size differences, orthodontists’ diag-
nostic armamentarium needs to be strengthened by de-
veloping tooth-size prediction aids from odontometric
data specific to each racial group.
In addition to the racial differences in tooth sizes,
the descriptive statistics in Table II show that the mesio-
distal crown widths of all tooth groups measured in this
study were significantly larger in males than in females
(P \0.001). Similar sex dimorphisms in tooth sizes
have been noted in other odontometric studies.9,16-20
There is strong evidence that tooth size is expressed
through X-linked inheritance, with Garn et al32,33
hypothesizing that the 2 X chromosomes in females
might provide a measure of control lacking in males.
The significant sex differences in mesiodistal tooth
sizes emphasize the importance of developing mixed
dentition prediction aids separately for male and
female patients, so that a more accurate tooth size
prediction can be made during the MDSA. This sex
difference in tooth sizes was also considered by
Moyers11,34 while modifying his original probability
tables that were based on pooled odontometric data.
The secular trend in stature and body size is a well-
documented phenomenon.35,36 A similar secular trend
in tooth sizes has also been shown in several
odontometric studies.22-24 The secular increase in
tooth sizes suggests the need to progressively update
mixed dentition prediction aids developed from
odontometric data of previous generations, to avoid
underestimating the mesiodistal tooth widths of
present-day children.12 A clear secular trend in tooth
American Journal of Orthodontics and Dentofacial Orthopedics Philip et al 343
Volume 138, Number 3

Table VI. Probability tables for predicting the mesiodistal widths of unerupted mandibular canines and premolars
Percentile 19.5 20 20.5 21 21.5 22 22.5 23 23.5 24 24.5 25 25.5

Males
95% 20.00 20.35 20.70 21.06 21.41 21.76 22.12 22.47 22.82 23.17 23.53 23.88 24.23
85% 19.86 20.21 20.57 20.92 21.27 21.62 21.98 22.33 22.68 23.04 23.39 23.74 24.09
75% 19.72 20.04 20.31 20.63 20.96 21.32 21.67 22.02 22.37 22.73 23.08 23.43 23.78
65% 19.49 19.83 20.14 20.49 20.85 21.24 21.58 21.95 22.25 22.69 22.95 23.37 23.69
50% 19.40 19.75 20.11 20.46 20.82 21.17 21.53 21.88 22.24 22.59 22.95 23.30 23.65
35% 19.15 19.50 19.85 20.20 20.56 20.91 21.36 21.62 21.97 22.32 22.67 22.99 23.38
25% 19.11 19.48 19.83 20.12 20.49 20.88 21.34 21.70 21.90 22.26 22.61 22.81 23.31
15% 19.04 19.40 19.75 20.10 20.45 20.81 21.16 21.51 21.87 22.22 22.57 22.70 23.28
5% 18.86 19.24 19.56 19.86 20.23 20.52 20.86 21.23 21.58 21.96 22.29 22.64 22.99
Females
95% 19.79 20.13 20.46 20.80 21.14 21.47 21.81 22.15 22.49 22.82 23.16 23.50 23.82
85% 19.78 20.12 20.45 20.78 21.11 21.45 21.80 22.11 22.46 22.79 23.14 23.48 23.81
75% 19.59 19.93 20.22 20.51 20.84 21.21 21.62 21.96 22.29 22.63 22.97 23.30 23.64
65% 19.36 19.70 20.07 20.36 20.67 21.09 21.52 21.88 22.17 22.56 22.85 23.23 23.57
50% 19.22 19.55 19.89 20.22 20.56 20.89 21.23 21.56 21.90 22.23 22.57 22.90 23.23
35% 19.09 19.42 19.76 20.10 20.44 20.77 21.11 21.45 21.78 22.12 22.46 22.80 23.13
25% 19.05 19.39 19.73 20.07 20.40 20.74 21.08 21.42 21.75 22.09 22.43 22.77 23.10
15% 18.91 19.24 19.58 19.92 20.26 20.59 20.93 21.27 21.61 21.94 22.28 22.62 22.96
5% 18.79 19.13 19.42 19.78 20.05 20.31 20.79 21.08 21.47 21.79 22.14 22.47 22.79

sizes could not be established in this study because of
the lack of odontometric data from previous generations
of this ethnic group. However, the proposed new predic-
tion aids of this study might be more accurate for tooth-
size prediction in Indian children because they were
derived from contemporary odontometric data.
The correlation coefficients obtained in this study
(Table III) approximately parallel those of several other
studies: Hixon and Oldfather3 (0.69), Tanaka and
Johnston12 (0.65), Ballard and Wylie10 (0.64), and
Lee-Chan et al18 (0.66). It was suggested that these rel-
atively consistent correlations (0.60-0.70), between the
combined mesiodistal widths of the mandibular perma-
nent incisors and the mesiodistal widths of the canine-
premolar segments, might mean that 60% to 70% of
the polygenes that determine tooth size are shared be-
tween the mandibular incisors and the canines and the
premolars.12 This common genetic code gives theoretical
justification for the estimation of unerupted canine and
premolar widths based on the widths of already erupted
mandibular incisors, even though these teeth belong to
different morphologic classes. Multiple regression analy-
sis has also indicated that the combined mesiodistal
widths of the mandibular permanent incisors is the best
nonradiographic predictor variable for estimating the me-
siodistal widths of the unerupted canines and premolars
of both arches.37 Using the mandibular permanent inci-
sors as a predictor variable has several advantages: they
erupt early in the mixed dentition, can be easily mea-
sured, show little variability in size, and are directly in
the midst of most space-management problems.11
Coefficients of determination, which indicate the
predictive accuracy of the regression equations, were
between 0.43 and 0.46 for the different canine-
premolar segments (Table III). This means that 43%
to 46% of the total variances in canine-premolar widths
are accounted for by knowing the combined mandibular
incisor widths. The error involved in the use of the re-
gression equations is indicated by the SEE; the lower
the SEE, the better the prediction equation. The SEE
values in our study were between 0.71 and 0.81 mm
(Table III) and are approximately similar to the SEE
values reported by Jaroontham and Godfrey16 and Fer-
guson et al,21 while they were slightly lower than the
SEE values for the methods of Moyers11 and Tanaka
and Johnston.12
The new mixed dentition prediction aids (regression
equations and probability tables) developed in this study
are presented in Tables IV, V, and VI. The use of these
prediction aids for estimation of unerupted canine-
premolar widths could result in a more accurate
MDSA in Indian children.
Significant differences (P \0.05) were found be-
tween the predicted mesiodistal tooth widths of our
study and that of the Moyers probability tables at almost
all percentile confidence levels (Table VII). It can be
generally stated that the Moyers tables tend to underes-
timate the mesiodistal canine-premolar widths of this
population group, including at the recommended 75%
and 50% levels. Probability tables on the Moyers pattern
have also been derived by Priya and Munshi17 (South
Indians) and Schirmer and Wiltshire19 (black South
344 Philip et al American Journal of Orthodontics and Dentofacial Orthopedics
September 2010

Table VII. Differences between the regression values of States with its high immigrant population, might be
this study and those in the Moyers probability tables treating children of various racial and ethnic mixes,
at various percentile levels and will benefit by using mixed dentition prediction
Difference Y1-Y2 (mm) Difference Y1-Y2 (mm)
aids developed for specific population groups, such as
Maxillary canine-premolar Mandibular canine-premolar those proposed in this study for Indian children.
segments segments

Percentile Males Females Males Females CONCLUSIONS

† † † †
5 2.01 2.85 1.98 2.66
15 1.62* 2.28† 1.55* 1.89†
1. There is statistically significant sexual dimorphism
25 1.32* 2.16† 1.29* 1.61* in tooth sizes in Indian children, highlighting the
35 1.24* 1.95† 0.86* 1.29* importance of developing separate mixed dentition
50 1.09* 1.53† 0.78* 0.93* prediction aids for male and female patients.
65 0.77* 1.37* 0.71* 0.81* 2. Based on odontometric data from a contemporary
75 0.67* 1.15* 0.65* 0.74*
85 0.66 1.03* 0.11 0.29
population in India, new probability tables on the
95 0.16 0.35 0.72 0.45 Moyers pattern and easy-to-use prediction equa-
tions have been proposed in this study.
Y1, Predicted mesiodistal width of canine-premolar segments in this
3. The Moyers probability tables were found to signif-
study; Y2, predicted mesiodistal width of canine-premolar segments
in the Moyers study. icantly underestimate canine and premolar mesio-
*P \0.05; †P \0.001 (statistical tool: Wilcoxon signed rank sum test). distal widths of Indian children, at almost all
percentile levels, including the commonly used
75% and 50% levels.
Africans). Priya and Munshi also concluded that the 4. We recommend that the new probability tables and
Moyers probability tables underestimated the tooth prediction equations proposed in this study should
sizes of South Indian children.17 Schirmer and Wiltshire be used for MDSA in Indian children. However,
tested the applicability of the Moyers tables in black the accuracy of the proposed prediction aids should
South Africans and found highly significant differences be further tested in other ethnic groups of India.
(P \0.001) at all percentile confidence levels, in the
arches of both male and female subjects, except at the
REFERENCES
75%, 85%, and 95% levels in the maxillary arch of fe-
males.19 Al-Khadra38 found that the recommended 1. McDonald RE, Avery DR, Dean JA. Management of the develop-
ing occlusion. Dentistry for the child and the adolescent. 8th ed. St
75% confidence level of the Moyers probability tables Louis: Mosby; 2004:p. 627.
overestimated the sizes of canines and premolars of 2. Graber TM. Incidence and recognition of malocclusion. In:
a Saudi Arab population. On the other hand, Tanaka Graber TM, editor. Orthodontics: principles and practice. 3rd
and Johnston12 stated that the probability tables they de- ed. Philadelphia: W.B. Saunders; 2001:p. 204-5.
veloped were practically identical to those of Moyers11 3. Hixon EH, Oldfather RE. Estimation of the sizes of unerupted
cuspids and bicuspids. Angle Orthod 1958;28:236-40.
at all percentile confidence levels, probably because of 4. Cohen MI. Recognition of the developing malocclusion. Dent
the similar white samples used in both studies. Clin North Am 1959;6:299-311.
The importance of accurate prediction of the mesio- 5. Staley RN, Hoag JF. Prediction of the mesiodistal widths of max-
distal crown widths of unerupted canines and premolars illary permanent canines and premolars. Am J Orthod 1978;73:
during MDSA should be apparent, since often the deci- 169-77.
6. Staley RN, Shelly TH, Martin JF. Prediction of the lower canine and
sion to treat (or not to treat), as well as the type of treat- premolar widths in the mixed dentition. Am J Orthod 1979;76:300-9.
ment, is based on the results of the MDSA. The space 7. Staley RN, Kerber PE. A revision of the Hixon and Oldfather pre-
management protocol will be adversely affected if it is diction method. Am J Orthod 1980;78:296-302.
based on a wrong estimation of unerupted tooth sizes, ul- 8. Staley RN, Gorman TW, Hoag JF, Shelly TH. Prediction of the
timately resulting in poor treatment results. Fields39 widths of unerupted canines and premolars. J Am Dent Assoc
1984;108:185-90.
stated that the accuracy of the Moyers MDSA method 9. de Paula S, Almeida MA, Lee PC. Prediction of mesiodistal diam-
is fairly good when applied exclusively to white patients. eter of unerupted lower canines and premolars using 45 degrees
Our results confirm that the Moyers probability tables cephalometric radiography. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop
underestimate tooth sizes of Indian children. Develop- 1995;107:309-14.
ing new probability tables on the Moyers pattern, specif- 10. Ballard ML, Wylie WL. Mixed dentition case analysis: estimating
sizes of unerupted permanent teeth. Am J Orthod 1947;33:754-9.
ically for different population groups, can aid in 11. Moyers RE. Analysis of dentition and occlusion. In: Moyers RE,
achieving more accurate estimation of unerupted tooth editor. Handbook of orthodontics. 4th ed. Chicago: Year Book
sizes. Orthodontists, especially those in the United Medical Publishers; 1988:p. 235-40.
American Journal of Orthodontics and Dentofacial Orthopedics
Volume 138, Number 3
12. Tanaka MM, Johnston LE. The prediction of the sizes of unerup-
ted canines and premolars in a contemporary orthodontic popula-
tion. J Am Dent Assoc 1974;88:798-801.
13. Motokawa W, Masao O, Yoshio S, Yutaka Y. A method of mixed
dentition analysis in the mandible. J Dent Child 1987;54:114-8.
14. Lavelle CLB. Maxillary and mandibular tooth size in different ra-
cial groups and in different occlusal categories. Am J Orthod
1972;61:29-37.
15. Bishara SE, Jakobsen JR, Abdallah EM, Fernandez Garcia A. Com-
parisons 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;96:416-22.
16. Jaroontham J, Godfrey K. Mixed dentition space analysis in
a Thai population. Eur J Orthod 2000;22:127-34.
17. Priya S, Munshi AK. Formulation of a prediction chart for mixed
dentition analysis. J Indian Soc Pedod Prev Dent 1994;12:7-11.
18. Lee-Chan S, Jacobson BN, Chwa KH, Jacobson RS. Mixed den-
tition analysis for Asian-Americans. Am J Orthod Dentofacial
Orthop 1998;113:293-9.
19. Schirmer UR, Wiltshire WA. Orthodontic probability tables for
black patients of African descent: mixed dentition analysis. Am
J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop 1997;112:545-51.
20. Diagne F, Diop-Ba K, Ngom PI, Mbow K. Mixed dentition anal-
ysis in a Senegalese population: elaboration of prediction tables.
Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop 2003;124:178-83.
21. Ferguson FS, Macko DJ, Sonneberg EM, Shakun ML. The use of
regression constants in estimating tooth size in a Negro popula-
tion. Am J Orthod 1978;73:68-72.
22. Garn SM, Lewis AB, Walenga AJ. Evidence for a secular trend in
tooth size over two generations. J Dent Res 1968;47:503.
23. Lavelle CLB. Secular trends in different racial groups. Angle
Orthod 1972;42:19-25.
24. Harper C. A comparison of medieval and modern dentitions. Eur J
Orthod 1994;16:163-73.
25. Moorrees CFA, Reed RB. Correlations among crown diameters of
human teeth. Arch Oral Biol 1964;9:685-97.
Philip et al 345
26. Doris JM, Bernard BW, Kuftinec MM, Stom D. A biometric study
of tooth size and dental crowding. Am J Orthod 1981;79:326-35.
27. Lundstr}om A. Tooth morphology as a basis for distinguishing be-
tween monozygotic and dizygotic twins. Am J Hum Genet 1963;
15:34-43.
28. Nanda RS, Chawla JM. Variability of leeway space. J Indian Dent
Assoc 1973;45:99-108.
29. Nance HV. Limitations of orthodontic treatment. Mixed dentition
diagnosis and treatment. Am J Orthod Oral Surg 1947;33:177-223.
30. Singh M, Nanda RS. Prediction of tooth size and its clinical appli-
cation. J Indian Dent Assoc 1972;44:5-8.
31. Garn SM. Genetics of dental development. The biology of occlu-
sal development. Monograph 7, Craniofacial Growth Series. Ann
Arbor: Center for Human Growth and Development; University of
Michigan; 1977.
32. Garn SM, Lewis AB, Kerewsky RS. X-linked inheritance of
dental tooth size. J Dent Res 1965;44:439-41.
33. Garn SM, Lewis AB, Swindler DR, Kerewsky RS. Genetic control
of sexual dimorphism in tooth size. J Dent Res 1967;46(Suppl):
963-72.
34. Moyers RE. Analysis of dentition and occlusion. In: Moyers RE,
editor. Handbook of orthodontics. 3rd ed. Chicago: Year Book
Medical Publishers; 1973.
35. Freedman DS, Khan LK, Serdula MK, Srinivasan SR,
Berenson GS. Secular trends in height among children during 2
decades. Arch Pediatr Adolesc Med 2000;154:155-61.
36. Roche AF. Secular trends in human growth, maturation, and de-
velopment. Monogr Soc Res Child Dev 1979;44:1-120.
37. Huckaba GW. Arch size analysis and tooth size prediction. Dent
Clin North Am 1964;43:431-40.
38. Al-Khadra BH. Prediction of the sizes of unerupted canines and
premolars in a Saudi Arab population. Am J Orthod Dentofacial
Orthop 1993;104:369-72.
39. Fields HW. Treatment of moderate nonskeletal problems in pread-
olescent children. In: Proffit WR, Fields HW, editors. Contempo-
rary orthodontics. 3rd ed. St Louis: C.V. Mosby; 2000. p. 417-22.