Accuracy of Model Estimation versus Tanaka and Johnston Arch Length Analysis

Objectives: This study examines how accurate pediatric dentists are at estimating dental arch lengths by comparing their model estimations (guesstimating the arch length without measuring) to the Tanaka and Johnston mixed dentition arch length analysis. Study Design: This study consisted of two parts, a survey of practitioners and a model estimating and measuring component. The survey was designed and given to 44 pediatric dentists to determine how many were practicing orthodontics and using arch length analyses routinely. Then 18 pediatric dentists and 13 pediatric dental residents examined 20 sets of mixed dentition models and estimated how much space was available. These estimations were compared to the calculated gold standard, the Tanaka and Johnston arch length analysis of the same models. Results and Conclusions: More than half of the dentists surveyed that practice comprehensive orthodontics use arch length estimates. Pediatric dentists and pediatric dental residents are just as good as each other at estimating arch length. Pediatric dentists and pediatric dental residents underestimated arch length by –3.6 and –3.1 mm, respectively. More research needs to be done to determine if model estimation is a clinically acceptable way to judge arch length.

Arch length analysis; Orthodontics; Mixed dentition; Pediatrics; Tanaka-Johnston; Space maintenance

1. Hilgers K., Redford-Badwal D., and Reisine S. Orthodontic treatment provided by pediatric dentists. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop; 124(5): 551-560, 2003.

2. Keski-Nisula K., Hernesniemi R., Heiskanen M., Keski-Nisula L., and Varrela J. Orthodontic intervention in the earl mixed dentition: a prospective, controlled study on the effects of the eruption guidance appliance. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop; 133(2): 254-260, 2008.

3. Cattaneo C., Butti A. C., Bernini S., Biagi R., and Salvato A. Comparative evaluation of the group of teeth with the best prediction value in the mixed dentition analysis. Eur J Paediatr Dent; 11(1): 23-6, 2010.

4. Fleming PS. and DiBiase AT. Systematic reviews in orthodontics: what have we learned?. Intern Dent J; 58(1): 10-14, 2008.

5. Luu NS., Mandich MA., Tieu L. D., Kaipatur N., and Flores-Mir C. The validity and reliability of mixed-dentition analysis methods: a systematic review. JADA 142(10): 1143-1153, 2011.

6. Nuvvula S., Vanjari K., Kamatham R., and Gaddam KR. Primary dentition analysis: Exploring a hidden approach. Int J Clin Ped Dent; 9(1): 1, 2016.

7. Johnston LE. And Tanaka MM. The prediction size of unerupted canines and premolars in a contemporary orthodontic population. JADA;88: 798-801, 1974.

8. Dean JA., Avery DR., and McDonald RE. McDonald and Avery’s dentistry for the child and adolescent. Tenth edition. St. Louis, Missouri: Elsevier; 375-389, 2016.

9. Santoro M., Ayoub ME., Pardi VA., Cangialosi TJ. Mesiodistal Crown Dimensions and Tooth Size Discrepancy of the Permanent Dentition of Dominican Americans. Angle Orthod;70 (4): 303-307, 2000.

10. Filho HL., Maia LH., Lau TC., de Souza MM., and Maia LC. Early vs late orthodontic treatment of tooth crowding by first premolar extraction: A systematic review. Angle Orthod; 85(3):510-517, 2014.

11. Haruki T., and Little RM. Early versus late treatment of crowded first premolar extraction cases: post retention evaluation of stability and relapse. Angle Orthod; 68(1): 61-68, 1998.

12. Sunnak R., Johal A., and Fleming PS. Is orthodontics prior to 11 years of age evidence-based? A systematic review and meta-analysis. J Dent; 43(5): 477-486, 2015.

13. Bell RA. and Sonis A. Space supervision and guidance of eruption in management of lower transitional crowding: A non-extraction approach. Seminars in Orthodontics 20 (1): 16-35, 2014.

14. Proffit WR. The timing of early treatment: an overview. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop; 129(4): S47-S49, 2006.