World Journal of Dentistry

Register      Login

VOLUME 12 , ISSUE 2 ( March-April, 2021 ) > List of Articles

ORIGINAL RESEARCH

Difference in Average Length of Maxillary Incisors between the Deuteromalayid and Protomalayid Sub-races

Eko Fibryanto, Rani R Tjin, Anastasia E Prahasti, Joko Kusnoto

Keywords : Central incisor, Deuteromalayid, Gender, Lateral incisor, Maxilla, Protomalayid, Tooth length

Citation Information : Fibryanto E, Tjin RR, Prahasti AE, Kusnoto J. Difference in Average Length of Maxillary Incisors between the Deuteromalayid and Protomalayid Sub-races. World J Dent 2021; 12 (2):111-114.

DOI: 10.5005/jp-journals-10015-1805

License: CC BY-NC 4.0

Published Online: 00-04-2021

Copyright Statement:  Copyright © 2021; Jaypee Brothers Medical Publishers (P) Ltd.


Abstract

Aim and objective: The purpose of this study was to compare the differences in the average length of maxillary central and lateral incisors between the deuteromalayid and the protomalayid sub-race generally and differences between men and women in both sub-races. Materials and methods: The samples of this study were maxillary central and lateral incisors periapical radiographs of male and female patients from deuteromalayid and protomalayid sub-races in Universitas Trisakti Dental Hospital (n = 200). Radiographic images were obtained from 50 men and 50 women in each of deuteromalayid and protomalayid aged 12–34 years, then the tooth length was measured using digital calipers (Nankai, Japan). The parallel technique of periapical radiograph was taken using the paralleling cone indicator device (Hanshin, Japan), digital dental X-ray devices (Dϋrr Dental Vitascan, England), and conventional dental X-ray (Veraview IX, Japan). Results: The average length of maxillary central and lateral incisors from the deuteromalayid and protomalayid sub-races was analyzed with an independent t-test and revealed that there were significant differences between the groups (p < 0.05). The average length of maxillary central and lateral incisors for deuteromalayid was 24.70 ± 0.56 and 23.59 ± 0.62 mm, and the protomalayid was 25.66 ± 0.57 and 24.62 ± 0.63 mm, respectively. Based on gender, there were significant differences in the average length of maxillary central and lateral incisors between sub-races (p < 0.05). The average length of maxillary central and lateral incisors for protomalayid men was 26.05 ± 0.39 and 25.09 ± 0.44 mm, and protomalayid women was 25.27 ± 0.42 and 24.15 ± 0.41 mm, respectively. The average length of maxillary central and lateral incisors for deuteromalayid men was 25.06 ± 0.39 and 24.04 ± 0.44 mm, and deuteromalayid women was 24.33 ± 0.47 and 23.14 ± 0.42 mm, respectively. The interclass correlation coefficients were 0.999 and 0.991 and the intra-examiner correlation were 0.75 and 0.71. Conclusion: The average length of the protomalayid maxillary central and lateral incisors is longer than the deuteromalayid sub-race. The men have a longer average length than women in both sub-races. Clinical significance: The clinical application of this study is to be used as a reference to determine the estimated working length in endodontic treatment and as a demographic data reference regarding the length of the deuteromalayid and protomalayid sub-racial teeth.


PDF Share
  1. Peters OA, Noblett WC. Cleaning and shaping. In: Torabinejad M, Walton RE, Fouad AF, ed. Endodontics Principles and Practice. 5th ed., St. Louis: Elsevier Saunders; 2015. pp. 273–278.
  2. Walton R. Diagnostic imaging. In: Ingle JI, Bakland LK, Baumgartner J, ed. Ingle's Endodontics. 6th ed., Ontario: BC Decker Inc; 2008. pp. 556–559.
  3. Clegorn B, Goodacre C, Christie W. Morphology of teeth and their root canal systems. In: Ingle JI, Bakland LK, Baumgartner J, ed. Ingle's endodontics. 6th ed., Ontario: BC Decker Inc; 2008. pp. 151–162.
  4. Chandra BS, Gopikrishna V. Grossman's endodontic practice. 13th ed., New Delhi: Wolters Kluwer Pvt. Ltd; 2014. pp. 96–100.
  5. Soraya C, Hayati K, Reni A. Panjang rata-rata gigi insisivus sentralis permanen maksila pada mahasiswa suku Aceh. Cakradoya Dent J 2013;5(2):542–618.
  6. Choi S, Kim J, Kim C, et al. Cone-beam computed tomography for the assessment of root–crown ratios of the maxillary and mandibular incisors in a Korean population. Korean J Orthod 2017;47(1):39–49. DOI: 10.4041/kjod.2017.47.1.39.
  7. Versiani MA, Pereira MR, Pécora JD, et al. Root canal anatomy of maxillary and mandibular teeth. In: Versiani MA, Basrani B, Sousa Neto MD, ed. The root canal anatomy in permanent dentition. 1st ed., Switzerland: Springer International Publishing; 2018. pp. 181–240.
  8. Djoena H, Nasution F, Trenggono B. Antropologi. Jakarta: Universitas Trisakti; 2005. pp. 43–47.
  9. Kim E, Fallahrastegar A, Hur Y, et al. Difference in root canal length between Asians and Caucasians. Int Endod J 2005;38(3):149–151. DOI: 10.1111/j.1365-2591.2004.00881.x.
  10. Kayembe JM, Ashu MA, Lutula PS, et al. Difference in root canal length between populations. J Oral Dent Heal 2019;3(2):4–9.
  11. Sari F. Panjang Rata-Rata Gigi Insisivus Sentralis Permanen Maksila Dan Gigi Kaninus Permanen Maksila Pada Mahasiswa Suku Batak FKG USU Medan. Medan: Universitas Sumatera Utara; 2003. pp. 13–15
  12. Lähdesmäki R. Sex chromosomes in human tooth root growth, Radiographic studies on 47, XYY males, 46, XY females, 47, XXY males and 45, X/46, XX females [dissertation], Finland: Oulu University; 2006. pp. 46–55
  13. Zorba E, Vanna V, Moraitis K. Sexual dimorphism of root length on a Greek population sample. HOMO- J Comp Hum Biol 2014;65(2):143–154. DOI: 10.1016/j.jchb.2013.09.005.
  14. Hölttä P, Nyström M, Evälahti M, et al. Root-crown ratios of permanent teeth in a healthy Finnish population assessed from panoramic radiographs. Eur J Orthod 2004;26(5):491–497. DOI: 10.1093/ejo/26.5.491.
  15. Govindaram D, Bharanidharan R, Ramya R, et al. Root length: as a determinant tool of sexual dimorphism in an ethnic Tamil population. J Forensic Dent Sci 2018;10(2):96–100. DOI: 10.4103/jfo.jfds_10_18.
  16. Dental Health Foundation. Oral health in Ireland: A handbook for health professionals. 2nd ed., Ireland: University College Cork; 2014. p. 27
  17. Wei Z, Du Y, Zhang J, et al. Prevalence and indicators of tooth wear among Chinese adults. PLoS ONE 2016;11(9):1–14. DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0162181.
  18. Spijker AV, Rodriguez JM, Kreulen CM, et al. Prevalence of tooth wear in adults. Int J Prosthodont 2009;22(1):35–42.
  19. Glinka HJ, Artaria M, Koestbardiati T. The three human morphotypes in Indonesia. Indones J Soc Sci 2010;2(2):1–11.
  20. Glinka HJ. Perintis Antropologi Ragawi di Indonesia. 1st ed., Jakarta: PT. Kompas Media Nusantara; 2018. pp. 71–75.
  21. Melalatoa M. Ensiklopedia Suku Bangsa di Indonesia. Jakarta: CV Eka Putra; 1995. pp. 544–545.
  22. White SC, Pharoah MJ. Oral radiology principle and interpretation. 7th ed., St. Louis, Missouri: Elsevier; 2014. pp. 91–94.
  23. Iannucci J, Howerton L. Dental radiography principles and technique. 5th ed., St. Louis: Elsevier; 2017. pp. 152–171.
PDF Share

© Jaypee Brothers Medical Publishers (P) LTD.