↓ Skip to main content

New regression equations for predicting human teeth sizes

Overview of attention for article published in Head & Face Medicine, March 2015
Altmetric Badge

Mentioned by

twitter
1 X user

Citations

dimensions_citation
3 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
25 Mendeley
You are seeing a free-to-access but limited selection of the activity Altmetric has collected about this research output. Click here to find out more.
Title
New regression equations for predicting human teeth sizes
Published in
Head & Face Medicine, March 2015
DOI 10.1186/s13005-015-0067-8
Pubmed ID
Authors

Vanessa Paredes, Beatriz Tarazona, Natalia Zamora, Rosa Cibrian, Jose Luis Gandia

Abstract

The aims of the study were; to evaluate the applicability of the Moyers and Tanaka-Johnston Methods to individuals with a Spanish ancestry, to propose new regression equations using the lower four permanents incisors as predictors for the sum of the widths of the lower permanent canine and premolars, and to compare the new data to those from other populations. A total of 359 Spanish ancestry adolescents were selected. Their dental casts were measured using a 2D computerized system. Real teeth measurements were compared with those predicted using Moyers probability tables and Tanaka and Johnston equations, and standard regression equations were then developed. Results showed that Upper and Lower Canine and Premolar (UCPM, LCPM) predictions are quite different depending on the used method. Moyers tables can only be validly applied to a 75% percentile for the mandible in both, males and females, 85% in males and 90-92% in females. Moyers predictions tend to underestimate UCPM and LCPM whereas Tanaka-Johnston predictions tend to overestimate them. Equations for estimating the combined width of the unerupted canine and premolars were; Male: UCPM = 12.68 + 0.42 LI and LCPM = 11.71 + 0.44 LI. Female: UCPM = 12.06 + 0.43LI and LCPM = 10.71 + 0.46 LI.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profile of 1 X user who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 25 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Germany 1 4%
Unknown 24 96%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Other 4 16%
Student > Bachelor 3 12%
Professor 3 12%
Student > Master 3 12%
Student > Postgraduate 3 12%
Other 4 16%
Unknown 5 20%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 16 64%
Nursing and Health Professions 2 8%
Social Sciences 1 4%
Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutical Science 1 4%
Unknown 5 20%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 1. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 26 March 2015.
All research outputs
#18,403,994
of 22,796,179 outputs
Outputs from Head & Face Medicine
#183
of 334 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#192,633
of 263,390 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Head & Face Medicine
#10
of 15 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,796,179 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 11th percentile – i.e., 11% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 334 research outputs from this source. They receive a mean Attention Score of 2.1. This one is in the 7th percentile – i.e., 7% of its peers scored the same or lower than it.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 263,390 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 15th percentile – i.e., 15% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 15 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 1st percentile – i.e., 1% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.