Comparisons of mesiodistal and bnccolingnal crown dimensions of the permanent teeth in three populations from Egypt, Mexico, and the United States

Bishara, Samir E.; Jakobsen, Jane R.; Abdallah, Essam; Garcia, Arturo Fernandez

doi:10.1016/0889-5406(89)90326-0

Cited by 180 publications

(179 citation statements)

References 16 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

142

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…21 Some authors assessed the mesiodistal and buccolingual crown dimensions in North Americans, Egyptians and Mexicans. 22 All these populations showed significant differences between the measurements for men and women, which corroborated the findings of that previous study. 21 Men had larger canines and first molars.…”

Section: Discussionsupporting

confidence: 82%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Crown dimensions and proximal enamel thickness of mandibular second bicuspids

et al. 2011

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

To achieve proper recontouring of anterior and posterior teeth, to obtain optimal morphology during enamel stripping, it is important to be aware of dental anatomy. This study aimed at evaluating crown dimensions and proximal enamel thickness in a sample of 40 extracted sound, human, mandibular, second bicuspids (20 right and 20 left). Mesiodistal, cervico-occlusal and buccolingual crown dimensions were measured using a digital caliper, accurate to 0.01 mm. Teeth were embedded in acrylic resin and cut along their long axes through the proximal surfaces to obtain 0.7 mm-thick central sections. Enamel thickness on the cut sections was measured using a perfilometer. Comparative analyses were carried out using the Student's-t test (α = 5%). The mean mesiodistal crown widths for right and left teeth were 7.79 mm (± 0.47) and 7.70 mm (± 0.51), respectively. Mean cervico-occlusal heights ranged from 8.31 mm (± 0.75) on the right to 8.38 mm (± 0.85) on the left teeth. The mean values for the buccolingual dimension were 8.67 mm (± 0.70) on the right and 8.65 mm (± 0.54) on the left teeth. The mean enamel thickness on the mesial surfaces ranged from 1.35 mm (± 0.22) to 1.40 mm (± 0.17), on the left and right sides, respectively. On the distal surfaces, the corresponding values were 1.44 mm (± 0.21) and 1.46 mm (± 0.12). No significant differences were found between measurements for right and left teeth. However, enamel thickness was significantly greater on the distal surfaces, compared with the mesial surfaces.

show abstract

Section: Discussionsupporting

confidence: 82%

“…21 Men had larger canines and first molars. 22 Other authors found that dentin thickness appeared to be greater in men. 9,15 Accordingly, sexual dimorphism in crown mesiodistal width might presumably be due to dentin thickness.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 96%

Crown dimensions and proximal enamel thickness of mandibular second bicuspids

et al. 2011

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…This is in accordance with findings in other studies. 2,18,19,22,25,34 Females had more triangularly shaped lower incisors and lower crowding whereas males had more triangularly shaped upper incisors and upper crowding. However, these differences were not statistically significant.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…However, other authors have stated that the correlation of crowding and tooth size, or the MD/FL ratio, is weak, and that the correlation between crowding and dental arch size is more significant. [10][11][12][13][14][15] Other factors, such as aging, 16,17 tooth size differences between males and females, 18,19 malocclusion, 20 and race, 21,22 have also been studied.…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

Triangular-shaped incisor crowns and crowding

Rhee¹,

Nahm²

2000

American Journal of Orthodontics and Dentofacial Orthopedics

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

“…Crown length-breadth measurements have been widely used to provide insights into inter-and intragroup variability, and differences in tooth size among modern humans have been reported (Bishara et al, 1989;Brook et al, 2009;Hanihara, 1977;Keene, 1979;Otuyemi and Noar, 1996;Turner and Richardson, 1989). Probably, the most complex study of tooth size differences in modern humans was performed by Hanihara and Ishida (2005), who investigated the mesio-distal and bucco-lingual tooth crown differences among 72 major human populations.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

First molar size and wear within and among modern hunter-gatherers and agricultural populations

Górka

Romero

Pérez‐Pérez

2015

HOMO

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Please cite this article as: Górka, K., Romero, A., Pérez-Pérez, A.,First molar size and wear within and among modern hunter-gatherers and agricultural populations, Journal of Comparative Human Biology (2015), http://dx.doi.org/10. 1016/j.jchb.2015.02.007 This is a PDF file of an unedited manuscript that has been accepted for publication. As a service to our customers we are providing this early version of the manuscript. The manuscript will undergo copyediting, typesetting, and review of the resulting proof before it is published in its final form. Please note that during the production process errors may be discovered which could affect the content, and all legal disclaimers that apply to the journal pertain. AbstractApart from reflecting modern human dental variation, differences in dental size among populations provide a means for studying continuous evolutionary processes and their mechanisms. Dental wear, on the other hand, has been widely used to infer dietary adaptations and variability among or within diverse ancient human populations. Few such studies have focused on modern foragers and farmers, however, and diverse methods have been used. This research aimed to apply a single, standardized, and systematic quantitative procedure to measure dental size and dentin exposure in order to analyze differences among several hunter-gatherer and agricultural populations from various environments and geographic origins. In particular, we focused on sexual dimorphism and intergroup differences in the upper and lower first molars. Results indicated no sexual dimorphism in molar size and wear within the studied populations. Despite the great ethnographic variation in subsistence strategies among these populations, our findings suggest that differences in sexual division of labor do not affect dietary wear patterns.

show abstract

Comparisons of mesiodistal and bnccolingnal crown dimensions of the permanent teeth in three populations from Egypt, Mexico, and the United States

Cited by 180 publications

References 16 publications

Crown dimensions and proximal enamel thickness of mandibular second bicuspids

Crown dimensions and proximal enamel thickness of mandibular second bicuspids

Triangular-shaped incisor crowns and crowding

First molar size and wear within and among modern hunter-gatherers and agricultural populations

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About