|
 
 |
| ORIGINAL ARTICLE |
|
| Year : 2021 | Volume
: 15
| Issue : 1 | Page : 11-14 |
|
Predicting preformed molar band sizes: Guess to reality
Sanjeev Datana1, Saugat Ray2
1 Department of Dental Surgery and Oral Health Sciences, Armed Forces Medical College, Pune, Maharashtra, India
2 Classified Specialist (Orthodontics) NIDS, Danteshwari Inhs, RC Church, Colaba, Mumbai, India
| Date of Submission | 11-Feb-2020 |
| Date of Acceptance | 25-Jul-2020 |
| Date of Web Publication | 09-Mar-2021 |
Correspondence Address:
Sanjeev Datana
Department of Dental Surgery and Oral Health Sciences, Armed Forces Medical College, Pune, Maharashtra
India
 Source of Support: None, Conflict of Interest: None
DOI: 10.4103/JODD.JODD_6_20
Aim: This cross sectional descriptive study aims at finding the sizes of preformed molar bands of five different companies to provide a reference data.
Method: Assorted boxes of five different companies were selected randomly based on the easy availability of the brands in the market. The mesiodistal and labiolingual dimensions of the preformed bands were measured and the spreadsheet was created. Statistical evaluation was carried out. One way ANOVA was conducted which revealed overall inner area of bands of a particular size for all the five brands mentioned in the study was almost similar.
Results: One way ANOVA was conducted which revealed overall inner area of bands of a particular size for all the five brands mentioned in the study was almost similar.
Conclusions: A reference chart had been created for future compliance during banding procedures.
Keywords: Molar band, banding, orthodontic treatment
How to cite this article:
Datana S, Ray S. Predicting preformed molar band sizes: Guess to reality. J Dent Def Sect. 2021;15:11-4 |
| Introduction | |  |
Increased awareness and demand of orthodontic treatment have resulted in the phenomenal expansion of the orthodontic market. This resulted in the massive production of orthodontic items deviating from the standardized guidelines and sometimes even deviating the norms.[1],[2],[3],[4] Clinical practice often suffers such tantalizing promises of the manufacturers resulting in compromised outcomes of treatment. This applies even to the passive components like preformed molar bands. The nomenclature for a particular size of a molar band produced by different companies was sometimes clinically found by authors was different. This resulted in inaccurate estimation of molar bands, especially if assorted boxes of more than one company are kept in the inventory. Hence this causes increased chair side time and multiple try in for preformed bands, which is troublesome in busy clinical practices.
However, the introduction of the bondable molar tube have decreased the usage of molar bands drastically, but there are few occasions in clinical orthodontics which still demand for conventional banding procedures. Different manufacturers produce assorted bandboxes with the wide distribution of various sizes, but naked eye or long clinical experiences sometimes also is not adequate enough to determine the exact band size required for a particular tooth. This results either in multiple trials directly in patients' mouth or on diagnostic casts, which inadvertently increases the chairside time.
Black[5] measured the mesiodistal dimensions of human teeth, which are still used as references nowadays. Ballard[6] compared the mesiodistal dimensions of each tooth and its opposite member on the contralateral dental arch. He concluded that 90% of the teeth showed a right and left discrepancies of approximately 0.25 mm in mesiodistal dimensions in a few pairs of teeth. Few authors[7] developed a method for the assessment of tooth size discrepancies and localizing the problems in the various segments of respective dental arches. Bolton[8] recorded the mesiodistal width of all the teeth from the first molar to the first molar in 55 cases. He compared the ratio of total diameters between the twelve mandibular teeth and twelve maxillary teeth, six upper and six lower anterior teeth.
Garn et al.,[9] suggested that mesiodistal and buccolingual diameters are significantly related.
The present study aims at finding the maximum mesiodistal and buccolingual dimensions of the preformed molar bands of five different manufacturers, to create a reference data for calculating the optimum band size from the bandbox of the respective company.
Aim and objectives
This cross-sectional descriptive study aims at finding the sizes of preformed molar bands of five different companies to provide reference data for the selection of preformed molar bands during clinical try in of orthodontic bands in patients and avoid multiple try in during banding procedure.
| Materials and Methods | | |
The assorted bandbox of five different companies containing bands without tubes had been collected. The sizes selected for the study included the size from 34 to 40. Only right side upper and right side lower bands were selected as samples, keeping it considered that there are insignificant differences in the sizes of bands for the right and left sides. The maximum mesiodistal and labiolingual width of the selected molar bands were measured with a digital Vernier caliper. The molar bands were held with a needle holder by the operators to avoid the distortion of bands with figure pressure while measuring the dimensions. The measurements were being done by three different orthodontists separately to minimize the chances of errors. The values up to the second decimal had been recorded. Both the mesiodistal and labiolingual dimensions were multiplied to get the inner area of each molar band [Table 1] and [Table 2]. Entire data had been recorded in a spreadsheet, and statistical evaluations were performed with SPSS software for windows (version 20.0; IBM, Armonk, NY, USA).
| Result and Statistical Evaluation | | |
The data collected had been evaluated statistically. One-way ANOVA was done for comparison of dimensions of bands of different companies [Table 3]. Post-hoc multiple comparisons were also conducted to find out the correlation of data among different groups of bands. The means and standard deviations for each particular size of a band from five different companies are shown in [Table 1] and [Table 2].
| Discussion | | |
Over a period of few decades, numerous companies had invaded the orthodontic market with a variety of newer products gradually eliminating conventional orthodontic materials and procedures. With the introduction of bondable tubes and temporary anchorage devices, the use of molar bands had diminished. However, few situations like the frequent bond failure of molar tubes due to unfavorable tooth positions may demand the requirement of conventional banding procedures.
Preformed orthodontic bands are usually supplied in assorted boxes by various companies from which the selected bands are picked up with cotton forceps for try in the patients' mouth.[10] Any failure in estimation may lead to repeated try in and increased chair side time. Further tried in orthodontic bands need to be sterilized again and rearranged in the bandbox.[11] This increases both the intra and post-operational burden of handling performed orthodontic bands.
Hence, the present study focuses on the collection of data for measured mesiodistal and buccolingual widths of five different commonly available companies in market which can later be utilized by clinicians as reference as suggested in Tables 1 and 2, during banding procedures to avoid repeated intraoral trials of molar bands and reduce the chairside time.
Although an attempt had been made by the authors[12] in the past for prediction of band sizes based on the dimensions of the teeth on selected patients, but in the present study, we focused directly on the measurement of band sizes rather than teeth sizes, which not only can be done by the dental assistant also hence reducing the chairside time but also reduces the chances of multiple chair sideband trials as the prediction based on teeth sizes do have lots of variables associated with it.
We selected five different companies which had been shortlisted randomly based on the easy availability of these brands to the authors in their respective regions are Ortho Organizers, Captain Orthodontics, Modern Orthodontics, Liberal Orthodontics, and JJ orthodontics. The data collected pertaining to the preformed bands of each of these companies is shown in Tables 1 and 2. The tables reflect the mesiodistal and labiolingual dimensions and inner area of each of the band, which will serve as the guide tool for the selection of band size with respect to a particular brand as selected in the present study. One-way ANOVA for comparison of the dimensions within each group of bands of each company and between the five different groups of companies, as shown in Table 3, reveals that there are statistically highly significant differences within each group/brand containing all the available sizes and which was expected due to ascending dimensions from sizes 34–40. The differences in dimensions between five different groups/brands were found to be significant for mesiodistal and labiolingual dimensions, but the differences in the inner area for a particular band size in all five different companies were statistically not significant. This means the overall inner area of bands of a particular size for all the five brands mentioned in the study were almost similar. This could be a possibility for most of the other companies also and hence the same data, especially the inner area, may be applied as a guide tool for other companies also.
Although elaborate data of bandwidths of five companies had been collected, like most of the descriptive studies, the present study also had few inherent drawbacks despite numerous checks and balances while collecting data. Few of them, as suggested by the authors, are as follows:
- Individual standards of band fitting vary in different operators. A particular size may appear oversize for one operator, but the same one may appear an absolutely perfect fit. These individual-based variations are beyond the scope of this study
- The anatomical variations like the presence of cusp of Carabelli on molars or other atypical shapes may be misleading for the selection of preformed bands by using the reference values of the present study
- The manufacturing errors like dimensional distortions during heat treatment in the manufacturing unit had not been considered in the present study
- Within the scope of the present study, the sizes were limited between 34 and 40 as commonly supplied by most of the manufacturers. Preformed bands beyond these sizes either way were not considered.
| Conclusion | | |
Although numerous other companies are marketing the assorted bandboxes of different sizes, the present study focused on only five companies for sample selection. A reference chart had been created for future compliance during banding procedures.
Financial support and sponsorship
Nil.
Conflicts of interest
There are no conflicts of interest.
| References | | |
| 1. | Cash AC, Good SA, Curtis RV, McDonald F. An evaluation of slot size in orthodontic brackets. Are standards as expected? Angle Orthod 2004;74:450-3.  |
| 2. | Matasa CG. Flaws in bracket manufacturing. J Clin Orthod 1990;24:149-52. |
| 3. | Siatkowski RE. Loss of anterior torque control due to variations in bracket slot and archwire dimensions. J Clin Orthod 1999;33:508-10. |
| 4. | Pai VS, Pai SS, Krishna S, Swetha M. Evaluation of slot size in orthodontic brackets: Are standards as expected? J Ind Orthod Soc 2011;45:169-74. |
| 5. | Black GV. Descriptive Anatomy of the Human Teeth. 4 th ed. Philadelphia: S. S. White Dental Mfg. Co; 1902. |
| 6. | Ballard ML. Asymmetry in tooth size – A factor in the etiology, diagnosis, and treatment of malocclusion. Angle Orthod 1944;14:67-71. |
| 7. | Stifter J. A study of Pont's, Howe's, Ree's, Neff's, and Bolton's analysis on Class I adult dentitions. Angle Orthod 1958;28:215-25. |
| 8. | Bolton WA. The clinical application of a tooth-size analysis. Am J Orthod 1962;48:504-29. |
| 9. | Garn SM, Lewis AB, Kerewsky RS. Size interrelationships of the mesial and distal teeth. J Dent Res 1965;44:350-4. |
| 10. | Payne GS, Rosa S. Sterilization and disinfection in the orthodontic office: A practical approach. Am J Orthod 1986;90:250-2. |
| 11. | Fulford MR, Ireland AJ, Main BG. Decontamination of tried-in orthodontic molar bands. Eur J Orthod 2003;25:621-2. |
| 12. | Norton LA, Williams CA. Prediction of orthodontic band sizes from selected teeth. Am J Orthod 1973;64:480-90. |
[Table 1], [Table 2], [Table 3]
|
Search Pubmed for