Crown dimensions and proximal enamel thickness of mandibular second bicuspids

Abstract

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.

Detection of Dental Caries’ and Dermatoglyphics’ Association with Relative Enamel Thickness Using CBCT Images in Saudi Subpopulation: A Novel Approach

“…Gender differences in RET in our study population were insignificant ( p ≥ 0.05), indicating similar enamel secretion rates in both males and females. This finding is in contrast with other studies that point to gender differences in enamel thickness [ 18 ].…”

The innate host response in caries and periodontitis

“…Anatomic variations in the thickness and organization of the enamel barrier and underlying dentin occur on the tooth, reflecting differences in vulnerability to caries. The thickness of the enamel is significantly greater on distal than mesial surfaces (Fernandes, Vellini‐Ferreira, Scavone‐Junior, & Ferreira, ). After exposure to a cariogenic experimental S. mutans biofilm, cervical enamel and dentin demineralization was analysed using swept‐source optical coherence tomography.…”

Pattern of maxillary and mandibular proximal enamel thickness at the contact area of the permanent dentition from first molar to first molar

“…This does not agree with previous studies. 11,12,15 However, this might be explained by the differences in the methodologies used. In our study, the enamel thickness was measured directly histologically at the mesial and distal contact areas, whereas Macha et al 11 Maxillary incisors and canines were found to have significantly thinner enamel than premolars and molars.…”

“…9 Interproximal reduction was developed further by Sheridan. 10 Several studies have reported on proximal enamel thickness (PET) on posterior [11][12][13][14] and anterior dentitions. 7,15-17 Macha et al 11 and Fernandes et al 12 suggested a strong right-left symmetry for the same contralateral teeth, but their analyses were based only on the maxillary first and second premolars.…”