• Users Online: 167
  • Home
  • Print this page
  • Email this page
Home About us Editorial board Ahead of print Current issue Search Archives Submit article Instructions Subscribe Contacts Login 


 
 Table of Contents  
ORIGINAL ARTICLE
Year : 2021  |  Volume : 11  |  Issue : 4  |  Page : 77-80

An evaluation of dental crowding and its relation to the mesiodistal crown widths in Andhra Pradesh Population


1 Department of Dentistry, Jhalawar Medical College, Jhalawar, Rajasthan, India
2 Department of Public Health Dentistry, Dr. D.Y. Patil Vidapeeth, Pune, India
3 Department of Dentistry, IQ City Medical College and Hospital, Durgapur, West Bengal, India
4 Department of Public Health Dentistry, SMBT Institute of Dental Sciences, Nasik, Maharashtra, India

Date of Submission01-Dec-2020
Date of Decision31-Jan-2021
Date of Acceptance16-Feb-2021
Date of Web Publication16-Oct-2021

Correspondence Address:
Mansoor Saify
Department of Dentistry, Jhalawar Medical College, Jhalawar, Rajasthan
India
Login to access the Email id

Source of Support: None, Conflict of Interest: None


DOI: 10.4103/aihb.aihb_94_20

Rights and Permissions
  Abstract 


Introduction: Crowding of the teeth is one of the most common anomalies which makes an individual seek orthodontic treatment. Dental crowding is more disturbing to the patients when located in the anterior segment of the dental arch because it often affects the quality of the patient's smile and speech, causing social embarrassment to the patient. Materials and Methods: The maxillary and mandibular casts of 100 subjects belonging to the Andhra population between 13 and 21 years of age were selected and divided into 50 subjects crowded and 50 in the noncrowded group further; we divided the crowded and non-crowded group into 25 males and 25 females in each group. Using measurement tool, individual and collective mesiodistal crown widths of canine, first and second premolar and first molar and arch perimeter of both the maxillary and mandibular jaws were measured. Results: When both the gender were considered, the mesiodistal crown widths were statistically significant for dental crowding in both mandibular jaw (P < 0.05 for mesiodistal crown width–P > 0.05 for arch perimeter) and maxillary jaw (P < 0.05 for mesiodistal crown width–P > 0.05 for arch perimeter). When we analysed the gender wise in the non-crowded group, we found there is no significant difference in dental crowding in both mandibular jaw and maxillary jaw (P > 0.05). Mean arch perimeter of the maxillary arch in crowded females (95.56) and mean arch perimeter of the maxillary arch in crowded males (98.79) have significant difference (P < 0.05). Conclusion: This study concluded that it is the cumulative mesiodistal width of the tooth, which contribute more towards crowding, while the arch perimeter contributes much less to crowding. Thus, it is better to undergo extraction orthodontic treatment then to go for arch expansion in orthodontic patients of Andhra Pradesh who are seeking the treatment for relieving crowding.

Keywords: Arch expansion, crown width, dental crowding, orthodontic treatment


How to cite this article:
Jain DK, Mathur A, Saify M, Sharma T, Jain M. An evaluation of dental crowding and its relation to the mesiodistal crown widths in Andhra Pradesh Population. Adv Hum Biol 2021;11:77-80

How to cite this URL:
Jain DK, Mathur A, Saify M, Sharma T, Jain M. An evaluation of dental crowding and its relation to the mesiodistal crown widths in Andhra Pradesh Population. Adv Hum Biol [serial online] 2021 [cited 2021 Dec 4];11:77-80. Available from: https://www.aihbonline.com/text.asp?2021/11/4/77/328408




  Introduction Top


Crowding of the teeth is one of the most common anomalies, which makes a patient seek orthodontic treatment.[1] Dental crowding is more disturbing to the patients when located in the anterior segment of the dental arch because it often affects the quality of the patient's smile and speech, causing social embarrassment to the patient.[2] Crowding sometimes obstructs the access for maintenance of oral hygiene, leading to periodontal complications.[3] Crowding is related in part to the continuing reduction in jaw size human evolutionary development.[4] It has been found that three conditions mostly predisposing the dental arches to the crowd are excessively large teeth, excessively small bony bases of the jaws and a combination of large teeth and small jaws.[5] Anthropologists studying skeletons that were excavated along the Nile Valley in Egypt and Sudan have demonstrated reductions in tooth size and changes in the face including decreased robustness associated with the development of agriculture, but without any increase in the frequency of dental crowding and malocclusion.[6] For thousands of years, facial and dental reduction stayed in step, more or less. This suggests that it was not the reduction in tooth wear that increased crowding and malocclusion but rather the tremendous reduction in the forces of mastication, which subsequently reduced jaw involvement. Thus, as modern food preparation techniques spread throughout the world during the 19th century so did dental crowding.[6] Increased out-breeding can explain, to a certain extent, the increase in crowding in recent centuries. Jaw dimensions do seem to have strong genetic control,[7] and the transverse dimensions directly affect the amount of space for the teeth. Fastlicht[8] 1970 found a significant correlation between the mesiodistal widths of the maxillary and mandibular incisors and dental crowding. Norderval et al., 1975, as quoted by Radnzic[9] stated that, in the crowding cases, the four mandibular incisor teeth had significantly larger mesial-distal diameters. Lundstrom 1951, as quoted by Golwalkar and Msitry[10] also concluded that tooth size increases as crowding increases and that arch perimeter decrease as crowding increases. In another study, Lundstrom 1969 stated that persons with large teeth are more likely to have crowding than those with small teeth. Also suggested by Radnzic 1988 as quoted by Golwalkar and Msitry[10] was a complex interrelationship amongst cumulative mesiodistal crown widths, the various arch dimensions and primary dental crowding. Different studies have been conducted in different parts of the world and in India too Golwalkar and Msitry did a study to evaluate the relationship of the dental crowding to the mesiodistal crown widths and arch dimensions in Maharashtra population.[10] However, there are no data available detecting the cause of crowding in Andhra population. Thus, study is taken up to evaluate the relationship of the dental crowding to the mesiodistal crown widths and arch dimensions in Andhra Pradesh population. This study was done with two main objectives: to evaluate the relationship of the dental crowding to the mesiodistal crown widths in the Andhra Pradesh population and to correlate the sex differences, if any, to dental crowding.


  Materials and Methods Top


This study was taken up to evaluate the relationship of dental crowding to the mesiodistal crown widths in the Andhra Pradesh population. This study was reviewed and approved by the institutional ethics committee with letter number 84723/2000/Sub.Eth.

After getting the necessary approvals, the maxillary and mandibular casts of 100 subjects belonging to Andhra Pradesh between 13 and 21 years of age were collected following specific inclusion criteria. These subjects were divided into two groups: In the 1st group, maxillary and mandibular casts of 50 subjects (25 boys–25 girls) were selected from students of different schools and colleges in Guntur District. The criteria implied for the selection of the subjects of this group were well-aligned dental arches, Angle's Class I molar relation, Angle's class I canine relation, maximum overbite of 2–3 mm, maximum overjet of 2–3 mm, slight rotations and mild midline deviations were accepted. The selected casts had to undergo the measurements which were done on dental casts.

The measurement made on the cast were cumulative mesiodistal crown widths of all the teeth were calculated in each arch up to and including the first permanent molars. The arch perimeter was measured from the distal surface of the 1st permanent molar to the distal surface of the opposing molar at the buccal aspect (Proffit method). The dental arch is divided into segments which can be measured into straight lines approximately the arch. The segments of straight lines are:

  • Segment A – Distal surface of molar on right side to mesial surface of canine on right side
  • Segment B – Mesial of canine on the right side to the dental midline
  • Segment C – Dental midline to mesial surface of canine on the left side
  • Segment D – Mesial of canine to distal of a molar of that side.


Statistical analysis

All the data are entered in MS Excel and analysed through SPSS Software 10.0 (Trail version) Developed by Norman H. Nie, Dale H. Bent, C. Hadlai Hull and available with IBM., and an unpaired t-test is used in data analysis.


  Results Top


Comparisons were made between non-crowded (sample size-50) and crowded groups (sample size-50) [Table 1]. The statistical analysis showed significant differences between the mean cumulative mesiodistal width of teeth of the maxillary arch in the non-crowded group (92.7146) and the mean cumulative mesiodistal width of teeth of the maxillary arch in the crowded group (96.8636) (P < 0.05). Furthermore, a significant difference was shown in the mean cumulative mesiodistal width of teeth of mandibular arch in the non-crowded group (84.6636) and mean cumulative mesiodistal width of teeth of mandibular arch in the crowded group (88.5468) (P < 0.05). There is no significant difference in the mean arch perimeter of the maxillary arch in the non-crowded group (94.87) and the mean arch perimeter of the maxillary arch in the crowded group (97.1748) (P > 0.05). Furthermore, no significant difference in the mean arch perimeter of the mandibular arch in a non-crowded group (86.2034) and the mean arch perimeter of the mandibular arch in the crowded group (84.7612) (P > 0.05).
Table 1: Comparisons between non-crowded (sample size-50) and crowded groups (sample size-50)

Click here to view


Comparisons were made between females of the non-crowded group (sample size - 25) and males of the non-crowded group (sample size - 25) as shown in [Table 2]. There is no significant difference between the mean cumulative mesiodistal width of teeth of the maxillary arch in non-crowded females (92.3608) and the mean cumulative mesiodistal width of teeth of the maxillary arch in non-crowded males (93.0684) (P > 0.05). There is also no significant difference between the mean cumulative mesiodistal width of teeth of mandibular arch in non-crowded females (84.6064) and the mean cumulative mesiodistal width of teeth of mandibular arch in non-crowded males (84.7208) (P > 0.05). There is no significant difference between the mean arch perimeter of the maxillary arch in non-crowded females (94.7456) and the mean arch perimeter of the maxillary arch in non-crowded males (94.9944). There is also no significant difference between the mean arch perimeter of mandibular arch in non-crowded females (86.3144) and the mean arch perimeter of mandibular arch in non-crowded males (86.0924) (P > 0.05).
Table 2: Comparison non-crowded females with males casts

Click here to view


Comparisons were made between females of the crowded group (sample size – 25) and males of the crowded group (sample size – 25). There is no significant difference between the mean cumulative mesiodistal width of teeth of the maxillary arch in crowded females (95.95) and the mean cumulative mesiodistal width of teeth of the maxillary arch in crowded males (97.78) (P > 0.05) [Table 3]. Furthermore, no significant difference in mean cumulative mesiodistal width of teeth of mandibular arch in crowded females (87.24) and mean cumulative mesiodistal width of teeth of mandibular arch in crowded males (89.85) (P > 0.05). However, mean arch perimeter of the maxillary arch in crowded females (95.56) and the mean arch perimeter of the maxillary arch in crowded males (98.79) have a significant difference (P < 0.05). Mean arch perimeter of mandibular arch in crowded females (83.99) and mean arch perimeter of mandibular arch in crowded males (85.53) have no significant difference (P > 0.05).
Table 3: Comparison of crowded females versus crowded males

Click here to view



  Discussion Top


The importance of tooth size discrepancy in treatment planning has been the subject of various discussions in orthodontic literature.[11] It is thus important for an orthodontist to know the underlying cause for the malocclusion so as to plan the treatment accordingly.[12] The reduction in tooth size was attributed to changes in diet and methods of food processing as agriculture was adopted and refined.[13] Analysis of more samples by numerous researchers has established this general trend in tooth size reduction that is associated with changes in diet.

Dental crowding may also be the result of dental factors such as early loss of primary teeth, supernumerary teeth, for example, Mesiodens, supplemental etc., hyperdontia, retained primary teeth, midline diastema, dilacerations and ectopic maxillary canines or impacted canines.[14] Different studies carried by different groups of researchers in different population showed mixed results. These results depend on the races on which they made the particular study. The findings of this study are in agreement with those of Fastlicht,[8] Norderval, et al., as quoted by Radnzic,[9] and Doris, et al.[15]

The difference between the study by Fastlicht and the current study is that, in the former study, the groups were composed of either orthodontically treated or non-treated arches, whereas in the current study, the groups were composed of either crowded or non-crowded arches.

Doris, et al. in their study, found significant differences in mesiodistal tooth dimensions between the non-crowded and crowded groups, with the crowded group having uniformly larger teeth.[15] This finding is in direct agreement with the findings of the present study, in which mesiodistal tooth diameters were found to be significantly different between the crowded and non-crowded groups.

Golwalkar and Msitry[10] carried out a study to examine the extent to which tooth size and jaw size contributed to dental crowding. In the results of the study, they found that the crowded group had smaller dental arch dimensions than the non-crowded group, while no significant difference is present in between tooth widths of both the groups. Their study was done on the population, which is different from the population used in this study. Thus, the results of this study are also differing from the present study by stating that it is mainly the mesiodistal widths of the teeth which attribute to crowding.

Uysal et al.[16] conducted a study to identify the possible sex differences in tooth size ratios between males and females, to determine whether there is a difference in the incidence of tooth size discrepancies for both the anterior and overall ratios when comparing with different malocclusion groups. There were no statistically significant differences amongst malocclusion groups and even in between males and females; however, there were a large number of patients within each group who had more amounts discrepancies. This study indicates that differences were seen in tooth dimensions between males and females in crowded and non-crowded groups, but the present study shows that differences were not present between tooth dimensions of males and females in both non-crowded as well as crowded groups.

This study also states the same results, as according to this also, it is the cumulative mesiodistal width of the tooth, which contribute more towards crowding while the other factors like arch perimeter and lingual and buccal arch widths contribute much less to crowding. Thus, it is better to undergo extraction orthodontic treatment then to go for arch expansion in orthodontic patients of Andhra Pradesh who are seeking the treatment for relieving crowding.


  Conclusion Top


This study concludes that there is no difference between the male and female casts reported towards dental crowding and cumulative mesiodistal width of the tooth, which contribute more towards crowding while the arch perimeter contributes much less to crowding. Thus, it is better to undergo extraction orthodontic treatment then to go for arch expansion in orthodontic patients of Andhra Pradesh who are seeking the treatment for relieving crowding.

Financial support and sponsorship

Nil.

Conflicts of interest

There are no conflicts of interest.



 
  References Top

1.
daCosta OO, Aikins EA, Isiekwe GI, Adediran VE. Malocclusion and early orthodontic treatment requirements in the mixed dentitions of a population of Nigerian children. J Orthod Sci 2016;5:81-6.  Back to cited text no. 1
    
2.
Staufer K, Landmesser H. Effects of crowding in the lower anterior segment--a risk evaluation depending upon the degree of crowding. J Orofac Orthop 2004;65:13-25.  Back to cited text no. 2
    
3.
Soldani FA, Lamont T, Jones K, Young L, Walsh T, Lala R, et al. One-to-one oral hygiene advice provided in a dental setting for oral health. Cochrane Database Syst Rev 2018;10:CD007447.  Back to cited text no. 3
    
4.
Malocclusion in Early Anatomically Modern Human: A Reflection on the Etiology of Modern Dental Misalignment. Available from: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3835570/. [Last accessed on 2021 Mar 02].  Back to cited text no. 4
    
5.
A Quantitative Approach for Measuring Crowding in the Dental Arch: Fourier Descriptors - PubMed. Available from: https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/15179396/. [Last accessed on 2021 Mar 02].  Back to cited text no. 5
    
6.
Moreira CA, Dempster DW, Baron R. Anatomy and Ultrastructure of Bone – Histogenesis, Growth and Remodeling. In: Feingold KR, Anawalt B, Boyce A, et al., editors. Endotext. South Dartmouth, MA 02748: MDText.com, Inc; 2000. Available from: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/books/NBK279149/ [Last accessed on 2020 Apr 29].  Back to cited text no. 6
    
7.
Hill WG. Understanding and using quantitative genetic variation. Philos Trans R Soc Lond B Biol Sci 2010;365:73-85.  Back to cited text no. 7
    
8.
Fastlicht J. Crowding of mandibular incisors. Am J Orthod 1970;58:156-63.  Back to cited text no. 8
    
9.
Radnzic D. Dental crowding and its relationship to mesiodistal crown diameters and arch dimensions. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop 1988;94:50-6.  Back to cited text no. 9
    
10.
Golwalkar SA, Msitry KM. An evaluation of dental crowding in relation to the mesiodistal crown widths and arch dimensions. J Indian Orthod Soc 2008;42:22-9.  Back to cited text no. 10
  [Full text]  
11.
O'Mahony G, Millett DT, Cronin MS, McIntyre GT, Barry MK. The relationship between tooth size discrepancy and archform classification in orthodontic patients. J Clin Exp Dent 2015;7:e268-72.  Back to cited text no. 11
    
12.
Zere E, Chaudhari PK, Sharan J, Dhingra K, Tiwari N. Developing class III malocclusions: Challenges and solutions. Clin Cosmet Investig Dent 2018;10:99-116.  Back to cited text no. 12
    
13.
Luca F, Perry GH, Di Rienzo A. Evolutionary adaptations to dietary changes. Annu Rev Nutr 2010;30:291-314.  Back to cited text no. 13
    
14.
Meighani G, Pakdaman A. Diagnosis and management of supernumerary (mesiodens): A review of the literature. J Dent (Tehran) 2010;7:41-9.  Back to cited text no. 14
    
15.
Doris JM, Bernard BW, Kuftinec MM. A biometric study of tooth size and dental crowding. Am J Orthod 1981;79:326-36.  Back to cited text no. 15
    
16.
Uysal T, Sari Z, Basciftci FA, Memili B. Intermaxillary tooth size discrepancy and malocclusion: Is there a relation? Angle Orthod 2005;75:208-13.  Back to cited text no. 16
    



 
 
    Tables

  [Table 1], [Table 2], [Table 3]



 

Top
 
 
  Search
 
Similar in PUBMED
   Search Pubmed for
   Search in Google Scholar for
 Related articles
Access Statistics
Email Alert *
Add to My List *
* Registration required (free)

 
  In this article
Abstract
Introduction
Materials and Me...
Results
Discussion
Conclusion
References
Article Tables

 Article Access Statistics
    Viewed199    
    Printed8    
    Emailed0    
    PDF Downloaded26    
    Comments [Add]    

Recommend this journal


[TAG2]
[TAG3]
[TAG4]