Bolton yöntemi ile Braun yönteminin karşılaştırmalı olarak incelenmesi

Year 2024, , 50 - 58, 02.05.2024

Kardelen Aras Yıldırım , Emel Yücel

https://doi.org/10.17214/gaziaot.1240340

Abstract

ÖZET
AMAÇ: Diş boyut uyumsuzluğunun hesaplanmasında kullanılan Bolton yöntemi ile Braun yönteminin karşılaştırmalı olarak incelenmesidir.
GEREÇ VE YÖNTEM: Çalışma, Gazi Üniversitesi Diş Hekimliği Fakültesi Ortodonti Ana Bilim Dalı kliniğine ortodontik tedavi için başvurmuş hastaların alçı modellerinden oluşmaktadır. Birinci grup (G1), ideal bitim kriterlerine ve Angle Sınıf I molar kapanışına sahip 61 adet modelden oluşmaktayken; ikinci grup (G2), farklı maloklüzyonlara sahip 61 modelden oluşmaktadır. G2; Angle Sınıf I, II ve III olmak üzere alt gruplar halinde değerlendirilmiştir. Bolton ve Braun analizi, iki gruptaki tüm modeller üzerinde uygulanmıştır. Ölçümler, aynı araştırmacı tarafından dijital kumpas kullanılarak yapılmıştır. Verilerin normal dağılım göstermemesi sebebiyle Kruskal-Wallis H testi ve Mann-Whitney U testi kullanılmıştır. Ölçüm hatasına Dahlberg yöntemi ile bakılmıştır. P<0.05 değeri anlamlı olarak kabul edilmiştir.
BULGULAR: Her iki grup için de Bolton ve Braun yöntemleri arasında istatistiksel olarak anlamlı bir fark olduğu bulunmuştur (p<0.05). Her iki grupta da Bolton değerleri, Braun değerlerine göre anlamlı derecede büyük bulunmuştur (p<0.05). G2’de her iki yöntem kullanılarak yapılan ölçümlerde Angle Sınıf I, II ve III için ölçülen diş boyut uyumsuzluğu miktarları arasındaki fark istatistiksel olarak anlamlı bulunmuştur (p<0.05). Diş boyut uyumsuzluğu miktarı en fazla Angle Sınıf III maloklüzyon grubunda, en az Angle Sınıf I maloklüzyon grubunda bulunmuştur (p<0.05).
SONUÇ: Her iki grupta da Bolton değerleri, Braun değerlerinden büyük bulunmuştur. G2’deki alt gruplar arasında; iki yöntem için de diş boyut uyumsuzluğu miktarı en fazla Angle Sınıf III, en az Angle Sınıf I maloklüzyon grubunda bulunmuştur.

Keywords

diş oklüzyonu, karşılaştırmalı çalışma, maloklüzyon, Ortodonti

A comparative examination of Bolton's method and Braun's method

Abstract

ABSTRACT
OBJECTIVE: To compare Bolton’s method and Braun’s method used in the calculation of tooth size discrepancy.
MATERIALS AND METHODS: The study consists of plaster dental models of patients who applied to Orthodontic clinic of Gazi University Faculty of Dentistry for orthodontic treatment. The first group (G1) consisted of 61 models with ideal occlusion criteria and Angle Class I molar relationship; the second group (G2) consisted of 61 models with different malocclusions. G2 was evaluated as three subgroups; Angle Class I, II and III. Bolton and Braun analyses were performed on plaster models in both groups. Measurements were made by same researcher using a digital caliper. Kruskal-Wallis H test and Mann- Whitney U test were used since the data didn’t show normal distribution. Measurement error was checked with Dahlberg method. A value of P<0.05 was accepted as significant.
RESULTS: A statistically significant difference was found between the Bolton and Braun methods for both groups (p<0.05). Bolton values were found to be significantly higher than Braun values in both groups (p<0.05). In G2, the difference in tooth size discrepancy values was statistically significant among Angle Class I, II, and III malocclusions for both methods (p<0.05). The highest amount of tooth size discrepancy was found in the Angle Class III malocclusion group, while the least amount was found in the Angle Class I malocclusion group.
CONCLUSION: Bolton values were found to be higher than Braun values in both groups. Among the subgroups in G2, the highest amount of tooth size discrepancy was found in the Angle Class III and least was found in Angle Class I malocclusion group for both methods.

Keywords

dental occlusion, comparative study, malocclusion, orthodontics

References

• 1. Bolton WA. Disharmony in tooth size and it’s relation to the analysis and treatment of malocclusion. Angle Orthod 1958;28:113–30.
• 2. Ballard ML, Wylie WL. Mixed dentition case analysis, estimating size of unerupted permanent teeth. Am J Orthod 1947;33:754–9.
• 3. Nance HN. The limitations of orthodontic treatment: I. Mixed dentition diagnosis and treatment. Am J Orthod 1947;33:177–223.
• 4. Lavelle CL. Maxillary and mandibular tooth size in different racial groups and in different occlusal categories. Am J Orthod 1972;61:29– 37.
• 5. Black GV. Descriptive anatomy of the human teeth. 4th ed. Philadelphia: S.S. White Dental Mfg.Co;1902.
• 6. Neff CW. Tailored occlusion with the anterior coefficient. Am J Orthod 1949;35:309–13.
• 7. Neff CW. The size relationship between the maxillary and mandibular anterior segments of the dental arch. Angle Orthod 1957;27:138–47.
• 8. Lundstrom A. Intermaxillary tooth width ratio and tooth alignment and occlusion. Acta Odontol Scand 1955;12:265–92.
• 9. Braun S, Kusnoto B, Hnat WP. A new accurate approach to the anterior ratio with clinical applications. Part II: A nomographic solution. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop 1999;115:494–7.
• 10. Chu SJ. A biometric approach to predictable treatment of clinical crown discrepancies. Pract Proced Aesthet Dent 2007;19:401-9.
• 11. Bailey E, Nelson G, Miller AJ, Andrews L, Johnson E. Predicting tooth-size discrepancy: A new formula utilizing revised landmarks and 3-dimensional laser scanning technology. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop 2013;143:574-85.
• 12. Zhang G, Feng Q, Wei X, Xing K, Mei H, Zhou J, et al. A simple method for quick evaluation of the anterior tooth ratio: an observational study. BMC Oral Health 2022;22:1-10.
• 13. Andrews LF. The six keys to normal occlusion. Am J Orthod 1972;62:296–309.
• 14. Richmond S, Shaw WC, Roberts CT, Andrews M. The PAR index (Peer assessment rating): methods to determine outcome of orthodontic treatment in terms of improvement and standards. Eur J Orthod 1992;14:180–7.
• 15. Galvão M, Sato J, Coelho E. Dahlberg formula: a novel approach for its evaluation. Dent Press J Orthod 2012;17:115–24.
• 16. Agenter MK, Harris EF, Blair RN. Influence of tooth crown size on malocclusion. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop 2009;136:795–804.
• 17. Önçağ G, Sali İ, Doğan S. Ortodontik düzensizlerde büyüme paterninin bolton oranı ve ark genişliği üzerine etkisi. EÜ Dişhek Fak Derg 2011;32:103-8.
• 18. Braun S, Hnat W, Kusnoto B, Hnat T. A new accurate approach to the anterior ratio with clinical applications. Part I: A computer program. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop 1999;115:368–72.
• 19. Mishra RK, Kafle D, Gupta R. Analysis of interarch tooth size relationship in Nepalese subjects with normal occlusion and malocclusions. Int J Dent 2019;2019:2761427.
• 20. Machado V, Botelho J, Pereira D, Vasques M, Fernandes-Retto P, et al. Bolton ratios in Portuguese subjects among different malocclusion groups. J Clin Exp Dent 2018;10:864–8.
• 21. Mollabashi V, Soltani MK, Moslemian N, Akhlaghian M, Akbarzadeh M, Samavat H, et al. Comparison of Bolton ratio in normal occlusion and different malocclusion groups in Iranian population. Int Orthod 2019;17:143–50.
• 22. Wolford LM. Orthodontics for orthognathic surgery. In: Miloro M editor. Peterson’s principles of oral and maxillofacial surgery. 2nd ed. Londres: BC Decker; 2004. p. 1111-34.
• 23. Pizzol K, Gonçalves J, Santos-Pinto A, Peixoto A. Bolton analysis: An alternative proposal for simplification of its use. Dental Press J Orthod 2011;16:69–77.
• 24. Elyes H, Ines D, Nada S, Samir T, Amor Adel B. Association between tooth size discrepancies and Angle malocclusions in a Tunisian sample. Sch J Dent Sci 2021;8:52–7.
• 25. Karadede ÜB, Dellaloğlu D. Digital analysis of tooth sizes among individuals with different malocclusions: A study using three- dimensional digital dental models. Sci Prog 2021;104:1-12.
• 26. Richmond S, Shaw WC, O’Brien KD, Buchanan IB, Jones R, Stephens CD, et al. The development of the PAR index (Peer Assessment Rating): reliability and validity. Eur J Orthod 1992;14:125– 39.
• 27. Richmond S, Shaw WC, Stephens CD, Webb WG, Roberts CT, Andrews M. Orthodontics in the general dental service of England and Wales: a critical assessment of standards. Br Dent J 1993;174:315–29.
• 28. Akdeni̇z BS, Aykaç V, Turgut M, Çeti̇n S. Digital dental models in orthodontics: A review. J Exp Clin Med 2022;39:250–5.
• 29. Sehrawat S, Kumar A, Grover S, Dogra N, Nindra J, Rathee S, et al. Study of 3D scanning technologies and scanners in orthodontics. Mater Today Proc 2022;22:1-10.
• 30. Stevens DR, Flores-Mir C, Nebbe B, Raboud DW, Heo G, Major PW. Validity, reliability, and reproducibility of plaster vs digital study models: comparison of peer assessment rating and Bolton analysis and their constituent measurements. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop 2006;129:794–803.
• 31. Mullen SR, Martin CA, Ngan P, Gladwin M. Accuracy of space analysis with emodels and plaster models. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop 2007;132:346–52.
• 32. Kardach H, Szponar-Żurowska A, Biedziak B. A comparison of teeth measurements on plaster and digital models. J Clin Med 2023;12:1-10.
• 33. Liu J, Liu Y, Wang J, Zuo X, Wang X, Zhang Y, et al. Dental measurements based on a three-dimensional digital technique: A comparative study on reliability and validity. Arch Oral Biol 2021;124:1- 8.
• 34. Torassian G, Kau CH, English JD, Powers J, Bussa HI, Maria A, et al. Digital models vs plaster models using alginate and alginate substitute materials. Angle Orthod 2010;80:474–81.
• 35. Öztürk N, Akçam O. Ağız içi dijital tarayıcı ile elde edilen dental modellerin geleneksel alçı modeller ile karşılaştırılması. Ank Univ Hekim Fak Derg 2019;46:151–7.
• 36. Santoro M, Galkin S, Teredesai M, Nicolay OF, Cangialosi TJ. Comparison of measurements made on digital and plaster models. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop 2003;124:101–5.
• 37. Garino F, Garino GB. Comparison of dental arch measurements between stone and digital casts. World J Orthod 2002;3:250–4.
• 38. Kumar AA, Ananthakrishnan MG, Kumar S, Divakar G, Sekar S, Dharani S. Assessing the validity and reliability of tooth widths and Bolton ratios obtained from digital models and plaster models. J Pharm Bioallied Sci 2022;14:148–51.
• 39. Venugopal A, Marya A, Yadav R, Yadav AK, Yadav P, Birring L, et al. Evaluation of dental arch width among Angle’s classification of malocclusion. Int Med J 2021;28:558–61.
• 40. Yavan M, Hamamci N. Evaluation of intermaxillary tooth size ratios and discrepancies according to craniofacial growth pattern. Forum Ortod 2022;17:278–85.