medigraphic.com
ISSN 2395-9215 (Print)
Órgano Oficial de Difusión de la Facultad de Odontología de la UNAM

2018, Number 1

<< Back Next >>

Rev Mex Ortodon 2018; 6 (1)

Generation of a predictive equation for required space through linear regression analysis and its comparison with the Moyers and Tanaka Johnston methods in adolescents of 12-14 years of age at the S.U. «Darío Guevara Mayorga» Quito-Ecuador 2014-2015

Pazmiño ODW, Proaño RAM

Language: Spanish
References: 30
Page: 16-21
PDF size: 218.06 Kb.


ABSTRACT

Since the creation of Moyers’ tables in 1958 and the method of Tanaka Johnston in 1974, which predict the required space for the canines and premolars to erupt, their effectiveness has been questioned when applied to different ethnic groups than those in which the studies were conducted. In South America, where we find mixed race ethnicity different from the white race, most studies have concluded that during the application of these methods their predictive values are not coincident with actual values. This study made a prediction equation of required space by Pearson correlation coefficients and subsequent creation by linear regression using values of our population, both women and men; then we proceeded to compare its effectiveness with the two methods abovementioned (Moyers and Tanaka Johnston) and concluded that in women and men the generated equation was more effective.


REFERENCES

  1. Root WR. Facevalue. Am J Orthod. 1949; 35 (9): 697-703.

  2. Bennett ME, Phillips CL. Assessment of health-relatedquality of life for patients with severe skeletal disharmony: a review of the issues. Int J Adult Orthodon Orthognath Surg. 1999; 14 (1): 65-75.

  3. Kenealy PM, Kingdon A, Richmond S, Shaw WC. The Cardiff dental study: a 20-year critical evaluation of the psychological health gain from orthodontic treatment. Br J Health Psychol. 2007; 12 (1): 17-49.

  4. Shaw WC. Factors influencing the desire for orthodontic treatment. Eur J Orthod. 1981; 3 (3): 151-162.

  5. Al-Omiri MK, Abu Alhaija ES. Factors affecting patient satisfaction after orthodontic treatment. Angle Orthod. 2006; 76 (3): 422-431.

  6. Tedesco LA, Albino JE, Cunat JJ, Green LJ, Lewis EA, Slakter MJ. A dental-facial attractivenessscale: Part I. Reliability and validity. Am J Orthod. 1983; 83 (1): 38-43.

  7. Tedesco LA, Albino JE, Cunat JJ, Green LJ, Lewis EA, Slakter MJ. A dental-facial attractivenessscale: Part II. Consistency of perception. Am J Orthod. 1983; 83 (1): 44-46.

  8. Al-Bitar ZB, Al-Omari IK, Sonbol HN, Al-Ahmad HT, Cunningham SJ. Bullying among Jordanian schoolchildren, its effects on school performance, and the contribution of general physical and dentofacial features. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop. 2013; 144 (6): 872-878.

  9. Giddon DB. Orthodontic applications of psychological and perceptual studies of facial esthetics. Semin Orthod. 1995; 1 (2): 82-93.

  10. Tung AW, Kiyak HA. Psychological infl uence son the timing of orthodontic treatment. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop. 1998; 113 (1): 29-39.

  11. Varela M, García-Camba JE. Impact of orthodontics on the psychologic profi le of adultpatients: A prospective study. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop. 1995; 108 (2): 142-148.

  12. Shaw WC, Richmond S, Kenealy PM, Kingdon A, Worthington H. A 20-year cohort study of health gain from orthodontic treatment: psychological outcome. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop. 2007; 132 (2): 146-157.

  13. Graber LW, Jr RLV, Vig KWL. Orthodontics: current principles and techniques. Elsevier Health Sciences; 2011.

  14. Bos A, Hoogstraten J, Prahl-Andersen B. Expectations of treatment and satisfaction with dento facial appearance in orthodontic patients. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop. 2003; 123 (2): 127-132.

  15. Helm S, Kreiborg S, Solow B. Psychosocial implications of malocclusion: a 15-year follow-up study in 30-year-old Danes. Am J Orthod. 1985; 87 (2): 110-118.

  16. Jenny J, Cons NC, Kohout FJ, Frazier PJ. Test of a method to determine socially acceptable occlusal conditions. Community Dent Oral Epidemiol. 1980; 8 (8): 424-433.

  17. Seehra J, Newton JT, DiBiase AT. Interceptive orthodontic treatment in bullied adolescents and its impact onself-esteem and oral-health-related quality of life. Eur J Orthod. 2013; 35 (5): 615-621.

  18. Phillips C, Bennett ME, Broder HL. Dentofacial dish armony: psychological status of patients seeking treatment consultation. Angle Orthod. 1998; 68 (6): 547-556.

  19. Olsen JA, Inglehart MR. Malocclusions and perceptions of attractiveness, intelligence, and personality, and behavioralintentions. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop. 2011; 140 (5): 669-679.

  20. Davis LG, Ashworth PD, Spriggs LS. Psychological effects of aesthetic dental treatment. J Dent. 1998; 26 (7): 547-554.

  21. Klages U, Claus N, Wehrbein H, Zentner A. Development of a questionnaire for assessment of the psychosocial impact of dental aesthetics in young adults. Eur J Orthod. 2006; 28 (2): 103-111.

  22. Sinha PK, Nanda RS, McNeil DW. Perceived orthodontist behaviors that predict patient satisfaction, orthodontistpatient relationship, and patient adherence in orthodontic treatment. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop. 1996; 110 (4): 370-377.

  23. Feu D, Oliveira BH, Celeste RK, Miguel JA. Infl uence of orthodontic treatment on adolescents’ self-perceptions of esthetics. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop. 2012; 141 (6): 743-750.

  24. Johal A, Alyaqoobi I, Patel R, Cox S. The impact of orthodontic treatment on quality of life and self-esteem in adult patients. Eur J Orthod. 2015; 37 (3): 233-237.

  25. Kiyak HA. Does orthodontic treatment affect patients’ quality of life? J Dent Educ. 2008; 72 (8): 886-892.

  26. Patel N, Hodges SJ, Hall M, Benson PE, Marshman Z, Cunningham SJ. Development of the malocclusion impact questionnaire (MIQ) to measure the oral health-related quality of life of young people with malocclusion: part 1-qualitative inquiry. J Orthod. 2016; 43 (1): 7-13.

  27. 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 (3): 180-187.

  28. Brook PH, Shaw WC. The development of an index of orthodontic treatment priority. Eur J Orthod. 1989; 11 (3): 309- 320.

  29. Helm S, Petersen PE. Causal relation between malocclusion and caries. Acta Odontol Scand. 1989; 47 (4): 217-221.

  30. Helm S, Petersen PE. Causal relation between malocclusion and periodontal health. Acta Odontol Scand. 1989; 47 (4): 223-228.




2020     |     www.medigraphic.com