RESEARCH AND EDUCATION

Maxillary lateral incisor agenesis and its relationship

to overall tooth size
Jane Wright, DDS, MS,a Jose A. Bosio, BDS, MS,b Jang-Ching Chou, DDS, MS,c and
Shuying S. Jiang, MSd

Prosthodontists, orthodontists, ABSTRACT

and general dentists frequently Statement of problem. Agenesis of the maxillary lateral incisor has been linked to differences in
encounter difficulties when the size of the remaining teeth. Thus, the mesiodistal space required for definitive esthetic resto-
attempting to restore the oc- ration in patients with missing maxillary lateral incisors may be reduced.
clusion if unilateral or bilateral
Purpose. The purpose of this study was to determine whether a tooth size discrepancy exists in
maxillary lateral incisors are orthodontic patients with agenesis of one or both maxillary lateral incisors.
congenitally missing. Restora-
tion of the missing lateral Material and methods. Forty sets of dental casts from orthodontic patients (19 men and 21
women; mean 15.9 years of age; all of European origin) were collected. All casts had agenesis of one
incisor using an implant-
or both maxillary lateral incisors. Teeth were measured with a digital caliper at their greatest
supported crown, a partial mesiodistal width and then compared with those of a control group matched for ethnicity, age, and
fixed dental prosthesis, or sex. Four-factor ANOVA with repeated measures of 2 factors was used for statistical analysis (a=.05).
mesial movement of the
Results. Orthodontic patients with agenesis of one or both maxillary lateral incisors exhibited
canine are treatment options. smaller than normal tooth size compared with the control group. The maxillary arch had a larger
In order to establish the tooth size difference between the control and test groups than the mandibular arch (there was a
optimal amount of space significant Jaw×Group interaction [F=4.78, P=.032]).
required for an ideal restora-
Conclusions. Agenesis of one or both maxillary lateral incisors is significantly associated with
tion, the contralateral lateral tooth size discrepancy, which may affect the space remaining for restoration of the remaining
incisor size can be used as a teeth. (J Prosthet Dent 2016;115:209-214)
guide for determining the size
of the missing lateral incisor.1 However, the contralateral where midlines are coincident, canines are in a class I
tooth is frequently peg shaped or also missing.2 In order relationship, and an ideal vertical and horizontal overlap
to determine the appropriate size, 2 methods have been is present, the space required to restore the maxillary
suggested: use of the golden proportion, which indicates lateral incisor may still be insufficient. A tooth size
that the lateral incisor should be approximately 62% of discrepancy in the mandibular, maxillary, or both arches
the width of the central incisor; and the Bolton analysis, could explain this clinical situation.
which is used to determine the required space for a Numerous studies have evaluated tooth size and
missing lateral incisor.3,4 malocclusion,4-11 but no firm conclusions have been
A minimum of 6 mm, but ideally 7 mm of space, is drawn as to whether tooth size can determine or affect
usually recommended for an implant in the area of the malocclusions. One study found the mesiodistal dimen-
lateral incisor.5,6 However, in many clinical situations, sion of the maxillary lateral incisor to be the most

Supported, in part, by the American Association of Orthodontists and American Association of Orthodontists Foundation (to J.A.B.). This article is based on the
Master’s thesis (J.W.) presented in 2011 in partial fulfilment of requirements for the degree of Master of Science, Marquette University School of Dentistry, 2011.
a
Adjunct Professor, Department of Developmental Sciences, Marquette University School of Dentistry, Milwaukee, Wis.
b
Associate Professor, Department of Orthodontics, Rutgers School of Dental Medicine, Newark, N.J.
c
Assistant Professor, Department of Oral Health and Rehabilitation, University of Louisville School of Dentistry, Louisville, Ky.
d
Research Associate I, Department of Institutional Assessment and Quality Improvement, Rutgers School of Dental Medicine, Newark, N.J.

THE JOURNAL OF PROSTHETIC DENTISTRY 209

210
Clinical Implications
Because maxillary and mandibular teeth are smaller
than normal in patients missing one or both
maxillary lateral incisors, the space created or
remaining for the definitive restorations may be
smaller than ideal. Thus, clinicians should plan
accordingly.
significant variable affecting tooth size arch size
discrepancy compared with the mesiodistal and bucco-
lingual dimensions of other teeth.10
Research has demonstrated that genetic factors may
contribute to agenesis and tooth size discrepancies.12-19
Specifically, MSX1 and PAX9 mutations have been asso-
ciated with tooth agenesis.12,15 PAX9 gene mutation has
also been associated with smaller than normal teeth.19
Although individuals of different ethnic origins
experience dental agenesis, those of European origin are
more often missing maxillary lateral incisors, with a
higher incidence in women.16,20,21 Men generally have
larger teeth than women within any given ethnicity. To
minimize ethnic variations within the sample population,
this study focused on the agenesis of maxillary lateral
incisors of individuals of European origin.
Few studies have discussed the relationship between
tooth size and agenesis.22-26 However, some studies have
suggested that newer implants require smaller spaces for
implant placement, leading to size reduction in tooth
replacement.27-30 Thus, the purpose of this study was to
evaluate whether tooth size discrepancy is observed in
white orthodontic patients with agenesis of one or both
maxillary lateral incisors. The null hypothesis was that or-
thodontic patients with unilateral or bilateral agenesis of
Figure 1. A, Patient cast showing unilateral agenesis of left maxillary lateral incisor, retained left primary canine, left permanent canine in position of
lateral incisor, and peg-shaped right lateral incisor. B, Cast of patient with agenesis of both maxillary lateral incisors. Maxillary canines moved mesially
into lateral incisor space.
THE JOURNAL OF PROSTHETIC DENTISTRY
Volume 115 Issue 2
the maxillary lateral incisor have the same sized teeth in the
maxilla and mandible as those in a matched control sample.
The secondary hypothesis was that sex, arch, and tooth type
affect tooth size in the missing lateral incisor group.
MATERIAL AND METHODS
This research was approved by the Institutional Review
Board. Forty sets of dental casts (21 women, 19 men,
mean 15.9 years of age), with missing maxillary lateral
incisors (22 unilateral, 18 bilateral) (Fig. 1), were collected
from local orthodontic practices. For comparison, an
equal number of dental casts were collected from the
Graduate Orthodontics program at the Marquette Uni-
versity School of Dentistry to form a control group
matched for ethnicity, age, and sex. Inclusion criteria for
the test population were: white individuals with unilat-
eral or bilateral agenesis of the maxillary lateral incisors,
with the other permanent teeth (except for third molars)
in both arches fully erupted; and with no evidence of
extreme wear, breakdown, or interproximal reduction of
any teeth. Pretreatment and post-treatment dental casts
were used for measurement. Post-treatment dental casts
were examined only to confirm that no interproximal
enamel reduction or enameloplasty had been conducted
during treatment. Dental casts with crowns or mesio-
distal restored teeth were rejected because of the modi-
fication of tooth structure and size.
The mean age for the test group was 15.9 years
(SD=7.12), ranging from 11 to 47 years of age, and the
mean age for the control group was 15.9 years (SD=6.7).
The orthodontic program’s computerized charting system
(axiUm; Exan Group) was used to search for the matching
sample. Mesiodistal widths of each tooth were measured
with a high-precision digital caliper (Digital Calipers; Masel,
Henry Schein Orthodontics), with measurements rounded
Wright et al
February 2016
Figure 2. Digital caliper measuring mesiodistal widths of maxillary teeth.
Teeth were measured at their widest points.
to the nearest hundredth of a millimeter (Fig. 2). One
investigator (J.W.) collected all dental cast measurements.
For each combination of arches and teeth number,
except for maxillary lateral incisor teeth, the left and right
tooth sizes were averaged and used as an outcome var-
iable for the tooth size in the data analysis. Because the
maxillary lateral incisor was missing in one or both sides
of the arch, all lateral incisors were excluded from data
analysis. Tooth sizes were compared between the test
and control groups and also compared for tooth
numbers, both jaws, and sex. A 4-factor ANOVA with
repeated measures of 2 factors was used for data analysis.
Tooth number and jaw were within-subjects factors,
whereas group and sex were between-subjects factors.
Software (SAS v9.4; SAS Institute Inc) was used for data
analysis (a=.05). Descriptive statistics are shown in
Table 1, and test results from repeated measures ANOVA
are shown in Table 2. In order to calculate the reliability
of measurements, 2 casts from the test group were
measured at 3 different time points, 2 months apart. The
intrarater version of the Shrout-Fleiss statistic test was
used to evaluate the reliability of the investigator’s tooth
width measurements.
RESULTS
The results of this study reject the null hypothesis that no
differences exist in tooth size in patients with agenesis.
Orthodontic patients with agenesis of one or both
maxillary lateral incisors exhibited smaller than normal
tooth size than the control group. (F=4.01, P=.049)
(Table 2; Fig. 3A).
Men were found to have larger teeth than women.
(Table 2; Fig. 3B). Canine teeth presented the largest
tooth size differences between men and women (there
was a significant tooth type×sex interaction [F=5.51,
P=.003]) (Table 2). First premolars presented the smallest
tooth size differences between men and women.
Wright et al
211
As expected, tooth size in the maxillary arch was
larger than in the mandibular arch (F=680.84, P<.001),
and the maxillary arch had larger tooth size differences
between control and test groups than the mandibular
arch (there was a significant arches×group interaction
[F=4.818, P=.031]) (Table 2).
Central incisors presented the largest tooth size differ-
ences between the maxillary and mandibular arches (there
was a significant tooth number×jaw interaction
[F=1879.67, P<.001]). The mean width for maxillary central
incisors was 8.51 mm, and the mean for mandibular incisor
was 5.24 mm (Table 1). First premolars had the smallest
tooth size difference between maxillary and mandibular
arches (Fig. 3C). The Shrout-Winer intrarater reliability test
found a consistency of 0.994, confirming the excellent
reliability of the test.
DISCUSSION
Although clinicians discuss the minimum necessary
space for an implant when one or both maxillary lateral
incisors are missing, they should focus on determining
the appropriate space for the implant/restoration. The
golden proportion for the anterior teeth can be consid-
ered when they determine the size for the missing lateral
incisor.3 Patients with smaller than normal maxillary and
mandibular teeth, as shown in the test sample of this
study, may require a smaller than necessary 6.5-mm or
7-mm space for an implant-supported replacement.5,6
Although the size of the lateral incisors was elimi-
nated from Table 1, the average size for maxillary lateral
incisors in the test group was 5.39 mm. This size is
appreciably less than that of the minimal 7-mm tooth-to-
tooth distance traditionally advocated for implant place-
ment.6 The 7-mm tooth-to-tooth distance allows for
placement of an implant approximately 4 mm in diam-
eter, with 1.5 mm between the implant and adjacent
teeth.26 With the advent of platform switching and nar-
row diameter implants, there is evidence that less space
may be needed for implant placement.27,28 A minimal
tooth-to-tooth space of 5.5 mm may be acceptable if a
3.5-mm diameter platform-switched implant is placed
with 1 mm between the implant and adjacent teeth.29,30
This procedure would allow for an appropriate maxillary
lateral incisor replacement.
Even though the present study evaluated the mean
mesiodistal widths of each tooth within a group, the large
range of the size of the maxillary lateral incisor size in
patients with unilateral agenesis (2.9 mm to 6.95 mm) is
of note. This demonstrates a wide spectrum in tooth size
of the maxillary lateral incisor when the contralateral
incisor is congenitally missing.
Yaqoob et al25 found an association between
the agenesis of maxillary lateral incisors and tooth size.
Mirabella et al26 also found that agenesis of a maxillary
THE JOURNAL OF PROSTHETIC DENTISTRY
212 Volume 115 Issue 2

Table 1. Descriptive statistics of populations studied

Maxillary Arch Mandibular Arch Total
Tooth Factor n Mean SD Mean SD Mean SD
Central incisor Group
Control 40 8.62 0.64 5.34 0.34 6.98 0.45
Test 40 8.39 0.67 5.13 0.41 6.76 0.52
Sex
Female 42 8.42 0.62 5.19 0.37 6.81 0.46
Male 38 8.60 0.70 5.28 0.42 6.94 0.53
Total 80 8.51 0.66 5.24 0.39 6.87 0.50
Canine Group
Control 40 7.77 0.50 6.74 0.44 7.25 0.45
Test 40 7.53 0.47 6.52 0.48 7.03 0.45
Sex
Female 42 7.47 0.37 6.47 0.32 6.97 0.31
Male 38 7.84 0.55 6.81 0.54 7.33 0.52
Total 80 7.65 0.49 6.63 0.47 7.14 0.46
First premolar Group
Control 40 7.02 0.42 7.12 0.48 7.07 0.43
Test 40 6.80 0.48 6.93 0.45 6.86 0.45
Sex
Female 42 6.88 0.43 7.01 0.44 6.95 0.42
Male 38 6.94 0.50 7.04 0.51 6.99 0.49
Total 80 6.91 0.46 7.02 0.47 6.97 0.45
Second premolar Group
Control 40 6.65 0.41 7.14 0.39 6.90 0.38
Test 40 6.48 0.40 7.10 0.45 6.79 0.40
Sex
Female 42 6.52 0.41 7.04 0.37 6.78 0.37
Male 38 6.62 0.41 7.21 0.46 6.91 0.41
Total 80 6.57 0.41 7.12 0.42 6.84 0.39
First molar Group
Control 40 10.19 0.60 10.92 0.74 10.56 0.62
Test 40 9.93 0.55 10.93 0.59 10.43 0.51
Sex
Female 42 9.95 0.47 10.72 0.50 10.34 0.44
Male 38 10.18 0.68 11.15 0.76 10.67 0.64
Total 80 10.06 0.59 10.93 0.67 10.49 0.57
All teeth Group
Control 40 8.05 0.43 7.45 0.40 7.75 0.40
Test 40 7.83 0.43 7.32 0.40 7.58 0.40
Sex
Female 42 7.85 0.38 7.29 0.33 7.57 0.34
Male 38 8.04 0.48 7.50 0.45 7.77 0.46
Total Total 80 7.94 0.44 7.39 0.40 7.66 0.41

lateral incisor was a strong predictor for reduced overall
tooth size. On average, that study showed that the dif-
ference in mesiodistal width of the maxillary central incisor
was 0.47 mm and that of the mandibular incisors was 0.43
mm. However, they had no control for race and sex.26
The results of the present study, where race, sex,
and age were controlled, also demonstrated that the
mandibular and maxillary teeth of patients with agenesis
of one of both maxillary lateral incisors were smaller than
those who had all permanent teeth. However, this study
could not find a specific tooth or group of teeth that
would indicate the discrepancy, nor has the study found
significant differences between specific teeth (central
incisor, canines, first and second premolar or molars) in
the control and sample test.
Ballard8 discovered that 90% of teeth in his sample
were not symmetrically sized between right and left sides,
with differences as much as 0.25 mm. In the present study,
no statistical differences were found between teeth on the
right and left sides. Therefore, the teeth were grouped
together, and an average size was created for each tooth.
Because one or both maxillary lateral incisors were missing

THE JOURNAL OF PROSTHETIC DENTISTRY Wright et al

February 2016 213

Table 2. Repeated measures ANOVA

8.2 Group
Factor F P Control
Group 4.01 .049* 8.1 Test
Sex 5.13 .026* 8.0

Tooth Size, Mean (mm)

Tooth number 2908.66 <.001* 7.9
Arch 680.84 <.001*
7.8
Group × sex 0.7 .406
Tooth number × group 1.04 .384 7.7
Tooth number × sex 5.51 <.001* 7.6
Arch × group 4.78 .032*
7.5
Arch × sex 0.30 .583
Tooth number × arch 1879.67 <.001*
7.4
Tooth number × group × sex 2.24 .065 7.3
Arch × group × sex 0.38 .542 7.2
Tooth number × arch × group 2.00 .094
Maxillary Mandibular
Tooth number × arch × sex 2.01 .093
Tooth number × arch × group × sex 1.72 .145 Arch A
*Statistically significant at a level of .05.
11 Sex
Female
from the test sample group, all lateral incisors were Male
excluded from the study to fit the statistical model. 10

Tooth Size, Mean (mm)

Mandibular teeth were also affected by maxillary
agenesis. However, the trend found in the mandibular 9
arch was not as large as that found in the maxillary arch.
If the discrepancy in the maxillary arch is larger, then a
8
replacement space for the missing lateral incisor may
need to be smaller in the maxilla.
The differences found for sex are contradictory in that 7
some authors found a sex-linked genetic association
between agenesis and tooth size19 and others25 found 6
similar results for both sexes. The present study found Central Canine 1st 2nd 1st
that men had larger teeth than women in both test and Incisor Premolar Premolar Molar
control groups. The canine teeth of men had the largest Tooth B
difference in size, whereas first premolars presented the
smallest difference (Fig. 3B); however, this study did not 11.0 Arches
find a statistical correlation in tooth size between sex and Mandibular
group samples. Maxillary
10.0
Although Kinzer and Kokich1 advocated using the
Tooth Size, Mean (mm)

Bolton analysis to determine the appropriate size for 9.0

the replacement of the missing maxillary lateral incisor, the
Bolton analysis was not conducted in this study test group,
8.0
mainly because of the unilateral or bilateral maxillary lateral
incisor agenesis. In retrospect, if the guidelines described by
7.0
Kinzer and Kokich1 had been followed, then the sum of the
widths of the mandibular anterior teeth should have been
6.0
divided by the sum of the available maxillary anterior teeth
plus x (the missing tooth), making this ratio equal to the
ideal anterior Bolton ratio (0.78). This could then have been 5.0
solved for x. This procedure may work well in patients with Central Canine 1st 2nd 1st
appropriately sized anterior teeth. However, in a popula- Incisor Premolar Premolar Molar
tion with a suspected tooth size discrepancy, using the ideal Tooth C
anterior Bolton ratio of 0.78, would not characterize such a Figure 3. A, Differences are shown for test versus control groups with
discrepancy and could suggest that the missing lateral maxillary and mandibular arches as factors. B, Differences in tooth size
incisor was larger or smaller than normal.7 Furthermore, are shown with sex and tooth types as factors. C, Differences in tooth
with this equation, x (the size of the missing lateral incisor) size are shown with maxillary and mandibular arches and tooth type as
may not match the existing contralateral maxillary lateral factors.

Wright et al THE JOURNAL OF PROSTHETIC DENTISTRY

214
incisor. This could lead the orthodontic clinician to prepare
an incorrect amount of space for the implant and crown
restoration.
Results that are statistically significant may not be
clinically significant. A tooth size discrepancy of 1.5 to 2
mm within an arch (0.75 to 1 mm/side) is deemed clin-
ically significant. Othman and Harradine30 used the
Bolton analysis to determine this clinical significance. The
study was conducted with a sample of orthodontic pa-
tients with a full complement of teeth, making it harder
to compare it with the present study of participants with
agenesis. Because the present study did not calculate the
tooth size discrepancy per participant (as with the Bolton
analysis), it is difficult to determine whether the results
from this sample are clinically significant. These tooth
size reductions may be clinically significant for some
patients but not for others.
The present study found significantly smaller teeth in
patients with agenesis of one or both maxillary lateral
incisor. However, these findings were not specific and may
have varied among individuals as well as being dependent
on specific clinical situations. It is thus advisable to
approach patients with maxillary lateral incisor agenesis on
a case-by-case basis, keeping in mind that these patients
can have varying patterns of smaller than normal teeth.
This study was limited to white orthodontic patients,
so generalizing tooth size discrepancy patterns across
races may not be prudent. The main finding of the pre-
sent sample from a white population showed patients
missing one or both maxillary lateral incisors to have
smaller tooth size than patients with all teeth present.
However, possibly because the reduced sample size, this
study could not find any specific tooth or group of teeth
responsible for the difference. The sample size should be
increased in future studies. Furthermore, people of Afri-
can, Hispanic, or Asian descent with agenesis of the
maxillary lateral incisor(s) may show different tooth size
discrepancies or none at all. Future studies are recom-
mended to evaluate these populations.
CONCLUSIONS
Orthodontic patients with unilateral or bilateral agenesis of
the maxillary lateral incisor have smaller than average teeth
when compared with a control-matched group. The
maxillary arch has larger tooth size differences between the
control and test groups than the mandibular arch. Clini-
cians should consider the findings of this study when
preparing maxillary lateral incisor sites for restorations.
REFERENCES
1. Kinzer GA, Kokich VO Jr. Managing congenitally missing lateral incisors.
Part II: Tooth-supported restorations. J Esthet Restor Dent 2005;17:76-84.
2. Woolf CM. Missing maxillary lateral incisors: a genetic study. Am J Human
Genetics 1971;23:289-96.
3. Lombardi RE. The principles of visual perception and their application to
dental esthetics. J Prosthet Dent 1973;29:358-82.
THE JOURNAL OF PROSTHETIC DENTISTRY
Volume 115 Issue 2
4. Bolton WA. Disharmony in tooth size and its relation to the analysis and
treatment of malocclusion. Angle Orthod 1958;28:113-30.
5. Kokich VG. Maxillary lateral incisor implants: planning with the aid of or-
thodontics. J Oral Maxillofac Surg 2004;62(suppl 2):48-56.
6. Kinzer GA, Kokich VO Jr. Managing congenitally missing lateral incisors.
Part III: Single-tooth implants. J Esthet Restor Dent 2005;17:202-10.
7. Bolton WA. The clinical application of a tooth-size analysis. Am J Orthod
1962;48:504-29.
8. Ballard ML. Asymmetry in tooth size: a factor in the etiology, diagnosis and
treatment to malocclusion. Angle Orthod 1944;14:67-70.
9. Uysal T, Sari Z, Basciftci FA, Memili B. Intermaxillary tooth size discrepancy
and malocclusion: is there a relation? Angle Orthod 2005;75:208-13.
10. Agenter MK, Harris EF, Blair RN. Influence of tooth crown size on maloc-
clusion. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop 2009;136:795-804.
11. Basdra EK, Kiokpasoglou MN, Komposch G. Congenital tooth anomalies and
malocclusions: a genetic link? Europ J Orthod 2001;23:145-51.
12. Vastardis H, Karimbux N, Guthua SW, Seidman JG, Seidman CE. A human
MSX1 homeodomain missense mutation causes selective tooth agenesis. Nat
Genet 1996;13:417-21.
13. Garib DG, Alencar BM, Lauris JR, Baccetti T. Agenesis of maxillary lateral
incisors and associated dental anomalies. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop
2010;137:732. e1-6.
14. McKeown HF, Robinson DL, Elcock C, al-Sharood M, Brook AH. Tooth di-
mensions in hypodontia patients, their unaffected relatives and a control group
measured by a new image analysis system. Eur J Orthod 2002;24:131-41.
15. Stockton DW, Das P, Goldberg M, D’Souza RN, Patel PI. Mutation of PAX9
is associated with oligodontia. Nat Genet 2000;24:18-9.
16. Bailit HL. Dental variation among populations. An anthropologic view. Dent
Clin North Am 1975;19:125-39.
17. Dempsey PG, Townsend GC. Genetic and environmental contributions to
variation in human tooth size. Heredity 2001;86:685-93.
18. Brook AH, Elcock C, al-Sharood MH, McKeown HF, Khalaf K, Smith RN.
Further studies of a model for the etiology of anomalies of tooth number and
size in humans. Connect Tissue Res 2002;43:289-95.
19. Brook AH, Elcock C, Aggarwal M, Lath DL, Russell JM, Patel PI, Smith RN.
Tooth dimensions in hypodontia with a known PAX9 mutation. Arch Oral
Biol 2009;54(suppl 1):S57-62.
20. Polder BJ, Van’t Hof MA, Van der Linden FP, Kuijpers-Jagtman AM. A meta-
analysis of the prevalence of dental agenesis of permanent teeth. Community
Dent Oral Epidemiol 2004;32:217-26.
21. Bishara SE, Fernandez Garcia A, Jakobsen JR, Fahl JA. Mesiodistal crown
dimensions in Mexico and the United States. Angle Orthod 1986;56:315-23.
22. Salmon D, Le Bot P. Congenital defects of the upper lateral incisors: multi-
variate analysis of measurements of the other teeth, the superior arch, head
and face. Am J Phys Anthropol 1977;46:245-51.
23. Sofaer JA, Chung CS, Niswander JD, Runck DW. Developmental interaction, size
and agenesis among permanent maxillary incisors. Hum Biol 1971;43:36-45.
24. Baidas L, Hashim H. An anterior tooth size comparison in unilateral and
bilateral congenitally absent maxillary lateral incisors. J Contemp Dent Pract
2005;6:56-63.
25. Yaqoob O, DiBiase AT, Garvey T, Fleming PS. Relationship between bilateral
congenital absence of maxillary lateral incisors and anterior tooth width. Am J
Orthod Dentofacial Orthop 2011;139:e229-33.
26. Mirabella AD, Kokich VG, Rosa M. Analysis of crown widths in subjects
with congenitally missing maxillary lateral incisors. Eur J Orthod 2012;34:
783-7.
27. Elian N, Bloom M, Dard M, Cho SC, Trushkowsky RD, Tarnow D. Effect of
interimplant distance (2 and 3 mm) on the height of interimplant bone crest:
a histomorphometric evaluation. J Periodontol 2011;82:1749-56.
28. Jung RE, Jones AA, Higginbottom FL, Wilson TG, Schoolfield J, Buser D,
et al. The influence of non-matching implant and abutment diameters on
radiographic crestal bone levels in dogs. J Periodontol 2008;79:260-70.
29. Vela X, Méndez V, Rodríguez X, Segalá M, Tarnow DP. Crestal bone
changes on platform-switched implants and adjacent teeth when the
tooth-implant distance is less than 1.5 mm. Int J Periodontics Restor Dent
2012;32:149-55.
30. Othman S, Harradine N. Tooth size discrepancies in an orthodontic popu-
lation. Angle Orthod 2007;77:668-74.
Corresponding author:
Dr Jose A. Bosio
Rutgers School of Dental Medicine
110 Bergen Street, Rm C780
Newark, NJ 07103
Email: jose.bosio@gmail.com
Acknowledgments
The authors thank Drs William Lobb, Gerard T. Bradley, and Dawei Liu, Mar-
quette University School of Dentistry, for advice and suggestions; and Jessica
Pruszynski and Dr Raphael Benoliel for statistical analysis.
Copyright © 2016 by the Editorial Council for The Journal of Prosthetic Dentistry.
Wright et al