Survey
* Your assessment is very important for improving the workof artificial intelligence, which forms the content of this project
* Your assessment is very important for improving the workof artificial intelligence, which forms the content of this project
RESEARCH AND EDUCATION Maxillary lateral incisor agenesis and its relationship to overall tooth size Jane Wright, DDS, MS,a Jose A. Bosio, BDS, MS,b Jang-Ching Chou, DDS, MS,c and Shuying S. Jiang, MSd Prosthodontists, orthodontists, ABSTRACT and general dentists frequently Statement of problem. Agenesis of the maxillary lateral incisor has been linked to differences in encounter difficulties when the size of the remaining teeth. Thus, the mesiodistal space required for definitive esthetic restoattempting to restore the ocration in patients with missing maxillary lateral incisors may be reduced. clusion if unilateral or bilateral Purpose. The purpose of this study was to determine whether a tooth size discrepancy exists in maxillary lateral incisors are orthodontic patients with agenesis of one or both maxillary lateral incisors. congenitally missing. RestoraMaterial and methods. Forty sets of dental casts from orthodontic patients (19 men and 21 tion of the missing lateral women; mean 15.9 years of age; all of European origin) were collected. All casts had agenesis of one incisor using an implantor both maxillary lateral incisors. Teeth were measured with a digital caliper at their greatest supported crown, a partial mesiodistal width and then compared with those of a control group matched for ethnicity, age, and fixed dental prosthesis, or sex. Four-factor ANOVA with repeated measures of 2 factors was used for statistical analysis (a=.05). mesial movement of the Results. Orthodontic patients with agenesis of one or both maxillary lateral incisors exhibited canine are treatment options. smaller than normal tooth size compared with the control group. The maxillary arch had a larger In order to establish the tooth size difference between the control and test groups than the mandibular arch (there was a optimal amount of space significant Jaw×Group interaction [F=4.78, P=.032]). required for an ideal restoraConclusions. Agenesis of one or both maxillary lateral incisors is significantly associated with tion, the contralateral lateral tooth size discrepancy, which may affect the space remaining for restoration of the remaining incisor size can be used as a teeth. (J Prosthet Dent 2016;115:209-214) guide for determining the size of the missing lateral incisor.1 However, the contralateral where midlines are coincident, canines are in a class I tooth is frequently peg shaped or also missing.2 In order relationship, and an ideal vertical and horizontal overlap to determine the appropriate size, 2 methods have been is present, the space required to restore the maxillary lateral incisor may still be insufficient. A tooth size suggested: use of the golden proportion, which indicates that the lateral incisor should be approximately 62% of discrepancy in the mandibular, maxillary, or both arches the width of the central incisor; and the Bolton analysis, could explain this clinical situation. which is used to determine the required space for a Numerous studies have evaluated tooth size and missing lateral incisor.3,4 malocclusion,4-11 but no firm conclusions have been drawn as to whether tooth size can determine or affect A minimum of 6 mm, but ideally 7 mm of space, is malocclusions. One study found the mesiodistal dimenusually recommended for an implant in the area of the sion of the maxillary lateral incisor to be the most lateral incisor.5,6 However, in many clinical situations, Supported, in part, by the American Association of Orthodontists and American Association of Orthodontists Foundation (to J.A.B.). This article is based on the Master’s thesis (J.W.) presented in 2011 in partial fulfilment of requirements for the degree of Master of Science, Marquette University School of Dentistry, 2011. a Adjunct Professor, Department of Developmental Sciences, Marquette University School of Dentistry, Milwaukee, Wis. b Associate Professor, Department of Orthodontics, Rutgers School of Dental Medicine, Newark, N.J. c Assistant Professor, Department of Oral Health and Rehabilitation, University of Louisville School of Dentistry, Louisville, Ky. d Research Associate I, Department of Institutional Assessment and Quality Improvement, Rutgers School of Dental Medicine, Newark, N.J. THE JOURNAL OF PROSTHETIC DENTISTRY 209 210 Volume 115 Issue 2 Clinical Implications Because maxillary and mandibular teeth are smaller than normal in patients missing one or both maxillary lateral incisors, the space created or remaining for the definitive restorations may be smaller than ideal. Thus, clinicians should plan accordingly. significant variable affecting tooth size arch size discrepancy compared with the mesiodistal and buccolingual dimensions of other teeth.10 Research has demonstrated that genetic factors may contribute to agenesis and tooth size discrepancies.12-19 Specifically, MSX1 and PAX9 mutations have been associated with tooth agenesis.12,15 PAX9 gene mutation has also been associated with smaller than normal teeth.19 Although individuals of different ethnic origins experience dental agenesis, those of European origin are more often missing maxillary lateral incisors, with a higher incidence in women.16,20,21 Men generally have larger teeth than women within any given ethnicity. To minimize ethnic variations within the sample population, this study focused on the agenesis of maxillary lateral incisors of individuals of European origin. Few studies have discussed the relationship between tooth size and agenesis.22-26 However, some studies have suggested that newer implants require smaller spaces for implant placement, leading to size reduction in tooth replacement.27-30 Thus, the purpose of this study was to evaluate whether tooth size discrepancy is observed in white orthodontic patients with agenesis of one or both maxillary lateral incisors. The null hypothesis was that orthodontic patients with unilateral or bilateral agenesis of the maxillary lateral incisor have the same sized teeth in the maxilla and mandible as those in a matched control sample. The secondary hypothesis was that sex, arch, and tooth type affect tooth size in the missing lateral incisor group. MATERIAL AND METHODS This research was approved by the Institutional Review Board. Forty sets of dental casts (21 women, 19 men, mean 15.9 years of age), with missing maxillary lateral incisors (22 unilateral, 18 bilateral) (Fig. 1), were collected from local orthodontic practices. For comparison, an equal number of dental casts were collected from the Graduate Orthodontics program at the Marquette University School of Dentistry to form a control group matched for ethnicity, age, and sex. Inclusion criteria for the test population were: white individuals with unilateral or bilateral agenesis of the maxillary lateral incisors, with the other permanent teeth (except for third molars) in both arches fully erupted; and with no evidence of extreme wear, breakdown, or interproximal reduction of any teeth. Pretreatment and post-treatment dental casts were used for measurement. Post-treatment dental casts were examined only to confirm that no interproximal enamel reduction or enameloplasty had been conducted during treatment. Dental casts with crowns or mesiodistal restored teeth were rejected because of the modification of tooth structure and size. The mean age for the test group was 15.9 years (SD=7.12), ranging from 11 to 47 years of age, and the mean age for the control group was 15.9 years (SD=6.7). The orthodontic program’s computerized charting system (axiUm; Exan Group) was used to search for the matching sample. Mesiodistal widths of each tooth were measured with a high-precision digital caliper (Digital Calipers; Masel, Henry Schein Orthodontics), with measurements rounded Figure 1. A, Patient cast showing unilateral agenesis of left maxillary lateral incisor, retained left primary canine, left permanent canine in position of lateral incisor, and peg-shaped right lateral incisor. B, Cast of patient with agenesis of both maxillary lateral incisors. Maxillary canines moved mesially into lateral incisor space. THE JOURNAL OF PROSTHETIC DENTISTRY Wright et al February 2016 Figure 2. Digital caliper measuring mesiodistal widths of maxillary teeth. Teeth were measured at their widest points. to the nearest hundredth of a millimeter (Fig. 2). One investigator (J.W.) collected all dental cast measurements. For each combination of arches and teeth number, except for maxillary lateral incisor teeth, the left and right tooth sizes were averaged and used as an outcome variable for the tooth size in the data analysis. Because the maxillary lateral incisor was missing in one or both sides of the arch, all lateral incisors were excluded from data analysis. Tooth sizes were compared between the test and control groups and also compared for tooth numbers, both jaws, and sex. A 4-factor ANOVA with repeated measures of 2 factors was used for data analysis. Tooth number and jaw were within-subjects factors, whereas group and sex were between-subjects factors. Software (SAS v9.4; SAS Institute Inc) was used for data analysis (a=.05). Descriptive statistics are shown in Table 1, and test results from repeated measures ANOVA are shown in Table 2. In order to calculate the reliability of measurements, 2 casts from the test group were measured at 3 different time points, 2 months apart. The intrarater version of the Shrout-Fleiss statistic test was used to evaluate the reliability of the investigator’s tooth width measurements. RESULTS The results of this study reject the null hypothesis that no differences exist in tooth size in patients with agenesis. Orthodontic patients with agenesis of one or both maxillary lateral incisors exhibited smaller than normal tooth size than the control group. (F=4.01, P=.049) (Table 2; Fig. 3A). Men were found to have larger teeth than women. (Table 2; Fig. 3B). Canine teeth presented the largest tooth size differences between men and women (there was a significant tooth type×sex interaction [F=5.51, P=.003]) (Table 2). First premolars presented the smallest tooth size differences between men and women. Wright et al 211 As expected, tooth size in the maxillary arch was larger than in the mandibular arch (F=680.84, P<.001), and the maxillary arch had larger tooth size differences between control and test groups than the mandibular arch (there was a significant arches×group interaction [F=4.818, P=.031]) (Table 2). Central incisors presented the largest tooth size differences between the maxillary and mandibular arches (there was a significant tooth number×jaw interaction [F=1879.67, P<.001]). The mean width for maxillary central incisors was 8.51 mm, and the mean for mandibular incisor was 5.24 mm (Table 1). First premolars had the smallest tooth size difference between maxillary and mandibular arches (Fig. 3C). The Shrout-Winer intrarater reliability test found a consistency of 0.994, confirming the excellent reliability of the test. DISCUSSION Although clinicians discuss the minimum necessary space for an implant when one or both maxillary lateral incisors are missing, they should focus on determining the appropriate space for the implant/restoration. The golden proportion for the anterior teeth can be considered when they determine the size for the missing lateral incisor.3 Patients with smaller than normal maxillary and mandibular teeth, as shown in the test sample of this study, may require a smaller than necessary 6.5-mm or 7-mm space for an implant-supported replacement.5,6 Although the size of the lateral incisors was eliminated from Table 1, the average size for maxillary lateral incisors in the test group was 5.39 mm. This size is appreciably less than that of the minimal 7-mm tooth-totooth distance traditionally advocated for implant placement.6 The 7-mm tooth-to-tooth distance allows for placement of an implant approximately 4 mm in diameter, with 1.5 mm between the implant and adjacent teeth.26 With the advent of platform switching and narrow diameter implants, there is evidence that less space may be needed for implant placement.27,28 A minimal tooth-to-tooth space of 5.5 mm may be acceptable if a 3.5-mm diameter platform-switched implant is placed with 1 mm between the implant and adjacent teeth.29,30 This procedure would allow for an appropriate maxillary lateral incisor replacement. Even though the present study evaluated the mean mesiodistal widths of each tooth within a group, the large range of the size of the maxillary lateral incisor size in patients with unilateral agenesis (2.9 mm to 6.95 mm) is of note. This demonstrates a wide spectrum in tooth size of the maxillary lateral incisor when the contralateral incisor is congenitally missing. Yaqoob et al25 found an association between the agenesis of maxillary lateral incisors and tooth size. Mirabella et al26 also found that agenesis of a maxillary THE JOURNAL OF PROSTHETIC DENTISTRY 212 Volume 115 Issue 2 Table 1. Descriptive statistics of populations studied Maxillary Arch Tooth Central incisor Factor n Mean Mandibular Arch SD Mean SD Total Mean SD Group Control 40 8.62 0.64 5.34 0.34 6.98 0.45 Test 40 8.39 0.67 5.13 0.41 6.76 0.52 Female 42 8.42 0.62 5.19 0.37 6.81 0.46 Male 38 8.60 0.70 5.28 0.42 6.94 0.53 Total 80 8.51 0.66 5.24 0.39 6.87 0.50 Sex Canine Group Control 40 7.77 0.50 6.74 0.44 7.25 0.45 Test 40 7.53 0.47 6.52 0.48 7.03 0.45 Female 42 7.47 0.37 6.47 0.32 6.97 0.31 Male 38 7.84 0.55 6.81 0.54 7.33 0.52 Total 80 7.65 0.49 6.63 0.47 7.14 0.46 Sex First premolar Group Control 40 7.02 0.42 7.12 0.48 7.07 0.43 Test 40 6.80 0.48 6.93 0.45 6.86 0.45 Female 42 6.88 0.43 7.01 0.44 6.95 0.42 Male 38 6.94 0.50 7.04 0.51 6.99 0.49 Total 80 6.91 0.46 7.02 0.47 6.97 0.45 Sex Second premolar Group Control 40 6.65 0.41 7.14 0.39 6.90 0.38 Test 40 6.48 0.40 7.10 0.45 6.79 0.40 Female 42 6.52 0.41 7.04 0.37 6.78 0.37 Male 38 6.62 0.41 7.21 0.46 6.91 0.41 Total 80 6.57 0.41 7.12 0.42 6.84 0.39 Control 40 10.19 0.60 10.92 0.74 10.56 0.62 Test 40 9.93 0.55 10.93 0.59 10.43 0.51 Sex First molar Group Sex All teeth Female 42 9.95 0.47 10.72 0.50 10.34 0.44 Male 38 10.18 0.68 11.15 0.76 10.67 0.64 Total 80 10.06 0.59 10.93 0.67 10.49 0.57 Group Control 40 8.05 0.43 7.45 0.40 7.75 0.40 Test 40 7.83 0.43 7.32 0.40 7.58 0.40 Female 42 7.85 0.38 7.29 0.33 7.57 0.34 Male 38 8.04 0.48 7.50 0.45 7.77 0.46 Total 80 7.94 0.44 7.39 0.40 7.66 0.41 Sex Total lateral incisor was a strong predictor for reduced overall tooth size. On average, that study showed that the difference in mesiodistal width of the maxillary central incisor was 0.47 mm and that of the mandibular incisors was 0.43 mm. However, they had no control for race and sex.26 The results of the present study, where race, sex, and age were controlled, also demonstrated that the mandibular and maxillary teeth of patients with agenesis of one of both maxillary lateral incisors were smaller than those who had all permanent teeth. However, this study could not find a specific tooth or group of teeth that THE JOURNAL OF PROSTHETIC DENTISTRY would indicate the discrepancy, nor has the study found significant differences between specific teeth (central incisor, canines, first and second premolar or molars) in the control and sample test. Ballard8 discovered that 90% of teeth in his sample were not symmetrically sized between right and left sides, with differences as much as 0.25 mm. In the present study, no statistical differences were found between teeth on the right and left sides. Therefore, the teeth were grouped together, and an average size was created for each tooth. Because one or both maxillary lateral incisors were missing Wright et al February 2016 213 Table 2. Repeated measures ANOVA Factor F 4.01 .049* 8.1 Sex 5.13 .026* 8.0 Tooth number 2908.66 <.001* Arch 680.84 <.001* 0.7 .406 Tooth number × group 1.04 .384 Tooth number × sex 5.51 <.001* Arch × group 4.78 .032* Arch × sex 0.30 .583 Tooth number × arch 1879.67 <.001* Tooth Size, Mean (mm) Group Group × sex Group Control Test 8.2 P 7.9 7.8 7.7 7.6 7.5 7.4 Tooth number × group × sex 2.24 .065 7.3 Arch × group × sex 0.38 .542 7.2 Tooth number × arch × group 2.00 .094 Tooth number × arch × sex 2.01 .093 Tooth number × arch × group × sex 1.72 .145 Maxillary Mandibular Arch A *Statistically significant at a level of .05. Wright et al Tooth Size, Mean (mm) 11 10 Sex Female Male 9 8 7 6 Central Canine 1st 2nd 1st Incisor Premolar Premolar Molar Tooth 11.0 10.0 Tooth Size, Mean (mm) from the test sample group, all lateral incisors were excluded from the study to fit the statistical model. Mandibular teeth were also affected by maxillary agenesis. However, the trend found in the mandibular arch was not as large as that found in the maxillary arch. If the discrepancy in the maxillary arch is larger, then a replacement space for the missing lateral incisor may need to be smaller in the maxilla. The differences found for sex are contradictory in that some authors found a sex-linked genetic association between agenesis and tooth size19 and others25 found similar results for both sexes. The present study found that men had larger teeth than women in both test and control groups. The canine teeth of men had the largest difference in size, whereas first premolars presented the smallest difference (Fig. 3B); however, this study did not find a statistical correlation in tooth size between sex and group samples. Although Kinzer and Kokich1 advocated using the Bolton analysis to determine the appropriate size for the replacement of the missing maxillary lateral incisor, the Bolton analysis was not conducted in this study test group, mainly because of the unilateral or bilateral maxillary lateral incisor agenesis. In retrospect, if the guidelines described by Kinzer and Kokich1 had been followed, then the sum of the widths of the mandibular anterior teeth should have been divided by the sum of the available maxillary anterior teeth plus x (the missing tooth), making this ratio equal to the ideal anterior Bolton ratio (0.78). This could then have been solved for x. This procedure may work well in patients with appropriately sized anterior teeth. However, in a population with a suspected tooth size discrepancy, using the ideal anterior Bolton ratio of 0.78, would not characterize such a discrepancy and could suggest that the missing lateral incisor was larger or smaller than normal.7 Furthermore, with this equation, x (the size of the missing lateral incisor) may not match the existing contralateral maxillary lateral B Arches Mandibular Maxillary 9.0 8.0 7.0 6.0 5.0 Central Canine 1st 2nd 1st Incisor Premolar Premolar Molar Tooth C Figure 3. A, Differences are shown for test versus control groups with maxillary and mandibular arches as factors. B, Differences in tooth size are shown with sex and tooth types as factors. C, Differences in tooth size are shown with maxillary and mandibular arches and tooth type as factors. THE JOURNAL OF PROSTHETIC DENTISTRY 214 incisor. This could lead the orthodontic clinician to prepare an incorrect amount of space for the implant and crown restoration. Results that are statistically significant may not be clinically significant. A tooth size discrepancy of 1.5 to 2 mm within an arch (0.75 to 1 mm/side) is deemed clinically significant. Othman and Harradine30 used the Bolton analysis to determine this clinical significance. The study was conducted with a sample of orthodontic patients with a full complement of teeth, making it harder to compare it with the present study of participants with agenesis. Because the present study did not calculate the tooth size discrepancy per participant (as with the Bolton analysis), it is difficult to determine whether the results from this sample are clinically significant. These tooth size reductions may be clinically significant for some patients but not for others. The present study found significantly smaller teeth in patients with agenesis of one or both maxillary lateral incisor. However, these findings were not specific and may have varied among individuals as well as being dependent on specific clinical situations. It is thus advisable to approach patients with maxillary lateral incisor agenesis on a case-by-case basis, keeping in mind that these patients can have varying patterns of smaller than normal teeth. This study was limited to white orthodontic patients, so generalizing tooth size discrepancy patterns across races may not be prudent. The main finding of the present sample from a white population showed patients missing one or both maxillary lateral incisors to have smaller tooth size than patients with all teeth present. However, possibly because the reduced sample size, this study could not find any specific tooth or group of teeth responsible for the difference. The sample size should be increased in future studies. Furthermore, people of African, Hispanic, or Asian descent with agenesis of the maxillary lateral incisor(s) may show different tooth size discrepancies or none at all. Future studies are recommended to evaluate these populations. CONCLUSIONS Orthodontic patients with unilateral or bilateral agenesis of the maxillary lateral incisor have smaller than average teeth when compared with a control-matched group. The maxillary arch has larger tooth size differences between the control and test groups than the mandibular arch. Clinicians should consider the findings of this study when preparing maxillary lateral incisor sites for restorations. REFERENCES 1. Kinzer GA, Kokich VO Jr. Managing congenitally missing lateral incisors. Part II: Tooth-supported restorations. J Esthet Restor Dent 2005;17:76-84. 2. Woolf CM. Missing maxillary lateral incisors: a genetic study. Am J Human Genetics 1971;23:289-96. 3. Lombardi RE. The principles of visual perception and their application to dental esthetics. J Prosthet Dent 1973;29:358-82. THE JOURNAL OF PROSTHETIC DENTISTRY Volume 115 Issue 2 4. Bolton WA. Disharmony in tooth size and its relation to the analysis and treatment of malocclusion. Angle Orthod 1958;28:113-30. 5. Kokich VG. Maxillary lateral incisor implants: planning with the aid of orthodontics. J Oral Maxillofac Surg 2004;62(suppl 2):48-56. 6. Kinzer GA, Kokich VO Jr. Managing congenitally missing lateral incisors. Part III: Single-tooth implants. J Esthet Restor Dent 2005;17:202-10. 7. Bolton WA. The clinical application of a tooth-size analysis. Am J Orthod 1962;48:504-29. 8. Ballard ML. Asymmetry in tooth size: a factor in the etiology, diagnosis and treatment to malocclusion. Angle Orthod 1944;14:67-70. 9. Uysal T, Sari Z, Basciftci FA, Memili B. Intermaxillary tooth size discrepancy and malocclusion: is there a relation? Angle Orthod 2005;75:208-13. 10. Agenter MK, Harris EF, Blair RN. Influence of tooth crown size on malocclusion. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop 2009;136:795-804. 11. Basdra EK, Kiokpasoglou MN, Komposch G. Congenital tooth anomalies and malocclusions: a genetic link? Europ J Orthod 2001;23:145-51. 12. Vastardis H, Karimbux N, Guthua SW, Seidman JG, Seidman CE. A human MSX1 homeodomain missense mutation causes selective tooth agenesis. Nat Genet 1996;13:417-21. 13. Garib DG, Alencar BM, Lauris JR, Baccetti T. Agenesis of maxillary lateral incisors and associated dental anomalies. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop 2010;137:732. e1-6. 14. McKeown HF, Robinson DL, Elcock C, al-Sharood M, Brook AH. Tooth dimensions in hypodontia patients, their unaffected relatives and a control group measured by a new image analysis system. Eur J Orthod 2002;24:131-41. 15. Stockton DW, Das P, Goldberg M, D’Souza RN, Patel PI. Mutation of PAX9 is associated with oligodontia. Nat Genet 2000;24:18-9. 16. Bailit HL. Dental variation among populations. An anthropologic view. Dent Clin North Am 1975;19:125-39. 17. Dempsey PG, Townsend GC. Genetic and environmental contributions to variation in human tooth size. Heredity 2001;86:685-93. 18. Brook AH, Elcock C, al-Sharood MH, McKeown HF, Khalaf K, Smith RN. Further studies of a model for the etiology of anomalies of tooth number and size in humans. Connect Tissue Res 2002;43:289-95. 19. Brook AH, Elcock C, Aggarwal M, Lath DL, Russell JM, Patel PI, Smith RN. Tooth dimensions in hypodontia with a known PAX9 mutation. Arch Oral Biol 2009;54(suppl 1):S57-62. 20. Polder BJ, Van’t Hof MA, Van der Linden FP, Kuijpers-Jagtman AM. A metaanalysis of the prevalence of dental agenesis of permanent teeth. Community Dent Oral Epidemiol 2004;32:217-26. 21. Bishara SE, Fernandez Garcia A, Jakobsen JR, Fahl JA. Mesiodistal crown dimensions in Mexico and the United States. Angle Orthod 1986;56:315-23. 22. Salmon D, Le Bot P. Congenital defects of the upper lateral incisors: multivariate analysis of measurements of the other teeth, the superior arch, head and face. Am J Phys Anthropol 1977;46:245-51. 23. Sofaer JA, Chung CS, Niswander JD, Runck DW. Developmental interaction, size and agenesis among permanent maxillary incisors. Hum Biol 1971;43:36-45. 24. Baidas L, Hashim H. An anterior tooth size comparison in unilateral and bilateral congenitally absent maxillary lateral incisors. J Contemp Dent Pract 2005;6:56-63. 25. Yaqoob O, DiBiase AT, Garvey T, Fleming PS. Relationship between bilateral congenital absence of maxillary lateral incisors and anterior tooth width. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop 2011;139:e229-33. 26. Mirabella AD, Kokich VG, Rosa M. Analysis of crown widths in subjects with congenitally missing maxillary lateral incisors. Eur J Orthod 2012;34: 783-7. 27. Elian N, Bloom M, Dard M, Cho SC, Trushkowsky RD, Tarnow D. Effect of interimplant distance (2 and 3 mm) on the height of interimplant bone crest: a histomorphometric evaluation. J Periodontol 2011;82:1749-56. 28. Jung RE, Jones AA, Higginbottom FL, Wilson TG, Schoolfield J, Buser D, et al. The influence of non-matching implant and abutment diameters on radiographic crestal bone levels in dogs. J Periodontol 2008;79:260-70. 29. Vela X, Méndez V, Rodríguez X, Segalá M, Tarnow DP. Crestal bone changes on platform-switched implants and adjacent teeth when the tooth-implant distance is less than 1.5 mm. Int J Periodontics Restor Dent 2012;32:149-55. 30. Othman S, Harradine N. Tooth size discrepancies in an orthodontic population. Angle Orthod 2007;77:668-74. Corresponding author: Dr Jose A. Bosio Rutgers School of Dental Medicine 110 Bergen Street, Rm C780 Newark, NJ 07103 Email: [email protected] Acknowledgments The authors thank Drs William Lobb, Gerard T. Bradley, and Dawei Liu, Marquette University School of Dentistry, for advice and suggestions; and Jessica Pruszynski and Dr Raphael Benoliel for statistical analysis. Copyright © 2016 by the Editorial Council for The Journal of Prosthetic Dentistry. Wright et al