3. INTRODUCTION
Model analysis is the study of dental casts, which
helps to study the occlusion & dentition from all three
dimensions &analyze the degree & severity of
malocclusion , to derive the diagnosis & plan for
treatment.
4. ADVANTAGES
They are three dimensional records of the patient’s
dentition.
Occlusion can be visualized from the lingual aspect.
They provide a permanent record of the intermaxillary
relationship.
Helps to motivate the patients,as they can visualized the
treatment progress.
They are needed for comparison purposes at the end of treatment &
act as a reference for post treatment changes.
They serve as reminder for the parent & the patient of the
condition present at the start of treatment.
In case the patient has to be transferred to another clinician,
study model are an important record.
5. DISADVANTAGES
Vertical skeletal jaw discrepancy can’t be ascertained
from cast.
Dental cast simply provide an idea of the relative anteroposterior
relationship of the jaws to each other.
Wheather the maxilla is retrusive or protrusive can’t be ascertained
from casts i.e.anteroposterior status of jaw to skeletal craniofacial
complex can’t be determined from study cast.
Degree of labial/lingual inclination of incisors observed on cast can be
misleading because one tends to judge in relation to the artistic portion
of the dental cast base.
Ref:-Jacobson A.,Jacobson R.L;Radiographic cephaometry from basics to 3-D
imaging.2nd ed;2-4
6. Mixed dentition period
Second transitional period (9-10 yrs)
Correction of ugly duckling
Utilization of leeway space (1.8mm
in mx & 3.4mm in Mn arch)
Emergence of permanent
canine,premolar,second molar
Inter transitional period
1to 1.5 yrs Relatively stable
First transitional period
Emergence of first
permanent molar
Exchange of primary
incisor with permanent
incisor (incisor liability)
Establishment of
occlusion
Ugly duckling
stage/Broadbent
phenomenon (8-9 yrs)
7. CLASSIFICATION
Radiographic
Nance analysis,1940
Huckaba’s,1964
NONRADIOGRAPHIC SPACE ANALYSIS
Ballard and Willie,1947
Moyer’s, 1973
Tanaka Johnston,1974
COMBINATION OF RADIOGRAPHS &
PREDICTION CHARTS
Hixon and Old father,1956
Staley kerber-combination,1980
8. AIM OF MIXED DENTITION ANALYSIS
To evaluate the amount of space available in the
arch for succeeding permanent teeth and necessary
occlusal adjustment.
Handbook of Orthodontics – Robert E Moyers – 4th edition;235
9. SPACE ANALYSIS
Space analysis , using the study casts is valuable in
evaluating the likely degree of crowding for a child in the
mixed dentition ; and in that case,it must include the
prediction of the size of the unerupted permanent teeth.
10. Nance’s mixed dentition analysis
(radiographic method),1947
This analysis is similar to arch perimeter
analysis of the permanent dentition
Armamentarium
Dental cast
Boley gauge, millimeter ruler
Peri-apical radiograph
11. PROCEDURE
n
Actual width of four
mandibular incisors measured
on the cast.
The width of unerupted
canine,premolars is measured
from the radiograph.
In case one of the premolar is
rotated,the width of the premolar
of the opposite side may be used.
12. The total value indicates the amount of the
space needed to accommodate all the permanent
teeth anterior to first permanent molar.
The space available for the permanent teeth
is determined with a brass wire passing
over the buccal cusp and incisal edges of
teeth from first molar to first molar.
13. Substract 3.4mm(in mandibular arch) and 1.8mm(in
maxillary arch)from the total space available to
accommodate a decrease in the archlength as a result
of the mesial drift(late mesial shift-leeway’s space)of
the permanent first molars.
Space required - space available =amount of
discrepancy
14. ADVANTAGES
It results in minimal errors
It can be performed with reliability
It allows analysis of both arches
LIMITATION
It is time consuming
Complete mouth radiograph is needed.
15. Hukaba’s mixed dentition analysis,
(radiographic method)1964
Principle-If we measure an object,which can
be seen both in the radiograph as well as on a
cast, then we can compensate for the
enlargement of the radiographic image.
16. X1/X2=Y1/Y2
X1=width of the unerupted tooth whose width is to
be determined
X2=width of the unerupted tooth on the
radiograph
Y1=width of erupted tooth as measured on
the
cast
Y2=width of erupted tooth as measured on a
17. Advantage
Very easy,practical and relatively accurate
method.
Not require any prediction table.
Can be used in maxillary and mandibular
arches.
Disadvantage
Inherent distortion of radiographic image
causes error.
18. MOYER’S MIXED DENTITION
ANALYSIS(1973)
Basis- high co relation among groups of teeth
, thus measuring one group of teeth,
prediction of size of other group of teeth can
be done.
Armamentarium-
1. Dental cast
2. Boley’s guage
3. Probability chart
19. Procedure:
Measure mesiodistal width of four mandibular
incisors-
The mandibular incisors have been chosen for
measuring,since
a) they are erupted into the mouth early in the mixed
dentition,
b) are easily measured accurately, and
c) are directly in the midst of most space
management problems.
20. -They show too much variability in size (especially max. lat
incisor), and
- their correlations with other groups of teeth are,of lower predictive
value. Therefore, the lower incisors are measured to predict the size
of upper as well as lower posterior teeth.
The maxillary incisors are not used in any of the predictive procedures, since
21. Total the M-D widths of mandibular incisors.
Using prediction chart for space available in mandibular
arch,locate the value closest to the sum of four
mandibular incisors.
On the study cast, determine and mark the midline of
mandibular arch.
Total the M-D widths of right mandibular incisors
& set the boley’s gauge to this value.
Measure from midline to right side. Place one point of
the gauge at the midline between the central incisor
and let the other end lie along the line of the dental
arch on the right side.
Mark on the point where the precise point where the
distal tip of boley’s gauge touched.
Repeat for the left side.
22. Measure the distance between the
point marked on the cast to the
mesial surface of permanent 1st
molar
Record that value and calculate the
difference
Repeat the process on the maxillary
arch.
Compute the amount of space
available.
Measure the distance from the point
marked on the cast to mesial
surface of the 1st molar, and
calculate space difference.
25. Advantages
It has minimal error.
Can be done with equal reliability by the
beginner and by an expert.
Not time consuming
No special equipment required
Can be done in mouth as well as on cast
Can be used for both arches
No radiograph required
Handbook of Orthodontics – Robert E Moyers – 4th edition;235
26. Limitations
1. Moyer’s analysis is probability analysis.
2.It does not account for tipping of mandibular incisor either
lingually or facially.
3.Moyers advised caution in using any analysis, as none was able to
compensate for the biological variation in individuals during the
transition from primary to permanent dentition
4. Moyers equation does not mention the population
group from which they were calculated
5.Moyer’s method of prediction may have population variations. For one
to be sure of the accuracy while using Moyer’s method it may be safer to
develop prediction tables for specific populations. Thus Moyer’s method
cannot universally be applied.
27. TANAKA JOHNSTON ANALYSIS,1974
Armamentarium
Boley guage
Study cast
The prediction of the size of the unerupted canines and
the premolars in contemporary orthodontic population can
also be done with the Tanaka Johnston analysis.
Tanaka and Johnston conducted a study on 506
orthodontic patients in Cleveland.
Ref:-Tanaka MM, lohnston LE: The prediction of the size of the unerupted canines and
premolars in a contemporary orthodontic population. J Am Dent Assoc 1974; 88:798.
28. They believed that the Moyer’s equations and
the size of his confidence intervals have never
been validated on any other samples.
Also that the possibility of secular changes during
the past 20 years cannot be ruled out.
Hence they undertook the study in the Orthodontic
Department of Case Western University school of
dentistry
29. Tanaka & Johnston prediction values
One half of the mesiodistal width of the four lower incisor
+10.5mm=estimated width of
mandibular canine and premolar
in one quadrant.
+11.0 mm=estimated width of
maxillary canine and premolar in
one quadrant.
Contemporary Orthodontics – William Proffit – 5th edition;428-29
30. Advantages-
•Technique involves simple, easily repeated procedure with
minimum material requirement
•Prediction chart and radiograph is not required
Limitations
•Error in predicted size if patients are not from North
western European descent.•
*John Y. K. Linga; Ricky W. K. Wong concluded constants
for males (upper-11.5; lower-10.5) or females (upper-11.0;
lower- 10.0) for southern Chinese population
31. HIXON-OLDFATHER PREDICTION
METHOD FOR THE MANDIBULAR ARCH
(1956)
Iowa Facial Growth Study.
41 children 15 male,26 female)
The original equation was primarily obtained from the measurements of
the teeth on the left side of the arch of each subject whereas the revised
equation was derived from the means of measurements taken from both
right and left side teeth in each subject.
Ref:-Hixon EH,OldFather RE ,Estimation of the sizes of the unerupted cuspid and
the bicuspid teeth : Angle Orthod :1958:28:236-240
33. Procedure
From the casts, on one side, measure the m-d widths of the
permanent mandibular central and lateral incisor.
From the periapical radiographs, measure the m-d width of
unerupted first and second premolars
Total the m-d widths of four(4) teeth. Compare the
measured value to estimated tooth size from the Hixon-
Oldfather chart.
Repeat steps 1 to 3 for the other side of the arch.
Advantage- it is very accurate technique
Limitation- Can be used only for lower arch.
35. Staley and Kerber method,1980
This method uses both IOPA X-rays and measurements
on dental casts.
A revision of Hixon and Oldfather mixed dentition
prediction method (1958) was undertaken by Staley and
Kerber on the same group of subjects used originally by
Hixon and Oldfather to develop their prediction.
These subjects were among those who participated in
Iowa Facial Growth Study.
36. Based on equations and computerised data
analysis,significantly improved prediction equations were
developed.
Staley and Kerber in a later study conducted at the Iowa,
significantly reduced the standard error of estimate when they
generated a revised Hixon and Oldfather prediction equation.
The co-efficient of correlation of the revised equation was
significantly higher than that of the original equation.
Ref.-Staley RN, Kerber PE. A revision of the Hixon and Oldfather mixed-dentition
prediction method. Am J Orthod 1980; 78(3): 296-302
37. A graph was made for clinical use in the prediction of
mandibular canine and premolar widths in mixed
dentition patients.
This prediction graph is accurate to the nearest
0.1mm.
Their method requires measurement of the incisors on
models/clinically and of mandibular premolars on
radiographs.
38. Step by step procedure
for analysis
1. Measure and add up
widths of mandibular
central and lateral
incisors on one side
2. Measure widths of
unerupted premolars from
IOPA radiograph of the
same side.
3. Sum of 1+2
4. Use the prediction
graph to calculate widths
39. If measurements were available for only one side
of the
arch, it can be reasonably assumed that the
prediction for one side would be very similar to that
of the opposite side of the arch.
Measurement of severely rotated
premolars on radiographs is best avoided.
A long-cone periapical radiographic
technique should be
used in conjunction with this method.
40. The simple computations and the convenient graph make this prediction
method suitable for clinical use.
The standard error of estimate for the prediction graph is 0.44 mm .
All the methods used to predict the widths of unerupted premolars and
canines in the mixed-dentition patient are subject to some error.
Methods and estimates with minimal error are obviously preferable to
those with larger errors.
Staley and Kerber method was comparatively more accurate than Hixon
and Oldfather.
41. The reasons of improvement were:
• Use of a computer, which employed 16 significant digits in its
computations. Hixon and Oldfather did not have the use of an
electronic computer.
• Oldfather’s measurements were taken on one side of the arch
only most commonly the left side whereas measurements were
taken on both sides of the arch for Staley and Kerber method.
• Hixon and Oldfather used a Boley gauge that read to the nearest
0.1 mm, whereas Helios dial calipers read to the nearest 0.05 mm
were used in Staley and Kerber method.
• Premolars that were rotated on the radiographs were not
measured in Staley and Kerber method but were measured by
Hixon and Oldfather.
42. Ballard & wylie’s
modification,1947
Ballard and Wylie were so concerned about the distortions of the X- ray
films that they devised a scheme for estimating the widths of the
mandibular canine and the premolars on the basis of the combined
widths of the four lower incisors.
Using the plaster models of 441 cases, they measured and recorded
the widths of all the mandibular teeth including the first molars.
On the average, the sum of the four permanent lower incisors were
23.84 +/- 0.08 mm.
The average sum of the canine,first and the second premolars
turned out to be 21.97 +/- 0.06mm
Ref.-Ballard,Murray L and Wylie, Wendell L : Mixed dentition case
analysis :Estimating the size of the unerupted permanent teeth : Am Jol Ortho
& Oral Surg : 1947 : 33: 754-759
43. Although not particularly high, the co-efficient of correlation of
+0.64 seemed sufficiently high to justify a predicton. They
modified the equation as Y = 9.41 +
0.527 ( X )
Testing these calculations on 60 cases , Ballard and
Wylie came to a conclusion that their method had only 2.6% error
as compared to the 10.5% error when using only the X-rays.
They do indicate that good X rays should be used and suggest that
their method was an adjunct to the Nance’s method.
44. Irwin r herold j,richardson a (1995)
They did a review of Methods that have been proposed for
mixed dentition analysis , Studies comparing the different
methods have shown that the method of Hixon & Oldfather
(1958), as refined by Staley & Kerber (1980), is the most
accurate.
* Mixed dentition analysis forms an integral aspect of
orthodontic diagnosis to determine whether the treatment plan
is going to involve serial extraction, space maintenance, space
gaining or simply periodic observation of the patient.
Ref:-Irwin R, Herold J, Richardson A. Mixed dentition analysis: a review of methods
and their accuracy. IJPD 1995;5:137-142
45. Sushma Sonawane,Asha
Bettigiri,Vivek Soni,2008
Examine and compare the accuracy of the Moyers and Tanaka &
Johnston mixed dentition analyses and to evaluate its applicability
to Indian Marathi population.
Developed regression analysis-
Y = a + b (X) where ,
X= independent variable (mandibular incisors
measurements)
Y = dependent variable (sum of canine and premolars).
For mandibular teeth- Y = 10.830 + 0.563 (X)
For maxillary teeth- Y = 12.143 + 0.481 (X)
46. They concluded that
a) Both Tanaka Johnson and moyers have comparable standard
errors of estimate,thus their accuracy is fairly comparable.
b) Moyers chart at 50% confidence level gives more realistic
estimate of width of unerupted canine and premolars as
compared to 75% confidence level for Marathi population.
c) Sugessted the use of newly developed regression equations is
suggested.
Ref:-Sonawane S, Bettigiri A, Soni V. Comparison of two non-radiographic
techniques of mixed dentition analysis and evaluation of their applicability for
marathi population; Scientific Journal 2008;vol 2.
47. None of the Mixed Dentition Analyses are as precise as one might like,
and all must be used with judgment and knowledge of development.
Hixon and Oldfather: most accurate
Tanaka and johnston : most practical
Radiographic Radiographic method: for population other method: for
population other than Caucasians
Inaccuracy in radiographic tooth size measurements is not the
dentist's fault.
It occurs because the developing teeth are not always placed exactly at
right angles to the central ray;therefore, the radiographic image of the
tooth, when slightly rotated or tipped, is significantly larger than the
actual size of the tooth.
conclusion
49. 1)Mathewson R, Primosch R. Fundamentals of pediatric
dentistry.3rd ed;30-33
2)Marwah N. Textbook of pediatric dentistry. Jaypee. 299- 307
3)Irwin R, Herold J, Richardson A. Mixed dentition analysis: a
review of methods and their accuracy. IJPD 1995;5:137- 142
4) Orthodontics-the art and science- S.I. Bhalajhi – III edition
5) Textbook of Pedodontics-Shoba tandon I edition
6)Handbook of Orthodontics – Robert E Moyers – 4th edition
7) Contemporary Orthodontics – William Proffit – 5th edition
50. 8) Ballard,Murray L and Wylie, Wendell L : Mixed dentition case
analysis :Estimating the size of the unerupted permanent teeth : Am Jol
Ortho & Oral Surg : 1947 : 33: 754- 759
10) Text book of orthodontics- Samire E Bishara
11)Hixon EH,OldFather RE ,Estimation of the sizes of the
unerupted cuspid and the bicuspid teeth : Ang Ortho : 1958:28:236-
240
12)Buwembo W, Luboga S.Moyer’s method of mixed dentition
analysis: a meta-analysis.African Health Sciences2004;4: 63-
66
13)Sonawane S, Bettigiri A, Soni V. Comparison of two non-
radiographic techniques of mixed dentition analysis and evaluation of
their applicability for marathi population; Scientific Journal 2008;vol
2.
14) Textbook of Orthodontics-Gurkeerat Singh – 2nd edition