An analysis of permanent mesiodistal

crown sixe
Carlos Sanin and Bhim S. Savara
Portland, Ore.

A task of the orthodontist is the alignment of teeth to improve the

masticatory efficiency as well as the appearance of the face and the dental arches.
Such a task may become frustrating in the presence of crown-size discrepancies.
Research in this area has been limited to the determination of ratios indicative
of how large the maxillary teeth should be in relation to their lower counter-
pa.rtP3 or to ratios which presumably indicate the correct amount of overjet or
overbite.4-G
The orthodontic examination may be incomplete without a careful analysis
of the patterns of mesiodistal crown-size relationships. Mesiodistal crown-size
relationships are decisive variables in the search for (1) factors associated with
the development of occlusal and facial irregularities, (2) the possible effects
of discrepancies upon interdigitation during and after orthodontic treatment,
and (3) the isolation of discrepant teeth of minor malocclusions that may be
treated in part by selective mesiodistal grinding and minor tooth movement,. To
accomplish this task, the clinician should be able to analyze the largest possible
number of crown-size relationships ; that is, the relative size differences between
a single tooth or groups of teeth and a single tooth or groups of teeth, regardless
of their location in the dental arches.
The clinical importance of crown-size discrepancies has been centered on the
anterior teeth as if a posterior crown-size discrepancy could not affect the
ultimate position of the anterior teeth and consequently affect the facial ap-
pearance. The magnitude of the problem has been overlooked. If there were a
standard to determine whether a crown is too large or too small, or whether the
other twenty-seven crowns are too large or too small, the number of discrepancies
28 28
would be approximately 22,000 billion or 2.2 x 1013 (II = 1+ S ( i ) x 2i). This
i _- 1

From the Child Study Clinic, University of Oregon Dental School.

This investigation was supported in part by Grant HD 00157-10 from the Institute of
Child Health and Human Development, National Institutes of Health.

488
Volume 59 Permanent mesiodistal crown size 489
Number 5

Table I. Percentile distribution of mesiodistal crown size of individual teeth and the sum
of the teeth, for boys
-
Small Average Large
!rooth Minimum 10 20 -30 40 50 60 70 80 90 Maximum
Maxillary
Central incisor 7.8 8.2 8.3 8.4 8.5 8.7 8.8 9.1 9.3 9.4 10.1
Lateral incisor 5.8 6.2 6.6 6.8 7.0 7.2 7.4 7.5 7.7 7.9 8.8
Canine 6.0 7.3 7.5 7.8 7.9 8.1 8.1 8.2 8.4 8.5 8.8
First premolar 6.1 6.5 6.8 6.9 7.0 7.1 7.2 7.3 7.4 7.5 8.1
Second premolar 5.8 6.2 6.5 6.7 6.8 7.0 7.1 7.2 7.4 7.5 8.0
First molar 9.1 10.0 10.3 10.4 10.6 10.7 11.0 11.2 11.3 11.5 12.0
Second molar 8.4 9.1 9.4 9.8 10.0 10.0 10.1 10.4 10.7 11.1 12.4
Total crown size 83.5 89.3 91.3 95.7 96.9 97.3 98.9 99.4 100.8 103.1 106.9
(excluding
second molars)

Central incisor 4.5 5.0 5.0 5.2 5.3 5.4 5.6 5.6 5.8 5.9 7.1
L,ateral incisor 5.0 5.7 5.8 5.9 6.1 6.2 6.2 6.5 6.6 6.7 7.3
Canine 6.2 6.5 6.6 6.8 7.0 7.1 7.2 7.3 7.5 7.5 7.8
First premolar 6.0 6.5 6.7 6.9 7.1 7.2 7.4 7.5 7.7 7.9 8.4
Second premolar 6.1 6.8 6.9 7.1 7.3 7.4 7.4 7.7 7.7 8.1 8.4
First molar 9.4 10.3 10.5 10.7 11.0 11.2 11.4 11.6 11.8 12.0 12.4
Second molar 8.3 9.1 9.4 9.9 10.0 10.1 10.3 10.5 10.6 10.9 12.3
‘I’otal crown size 79.5 81.9 85.0 86.6 88.5 89.4 90.2 91.6 92.9 94.4 98.0
(excluding
second molars)

means that there are more combinations of crown-size discrepancies than there
a.re stars in our stellar system (4 x lOlo) or approximately the same order of
magnitude as the total number of cellular divisions that occur in the human
blody between the time of the formation of the single egg cell and maturity
( 1014).? As striking as such a huge number is, the facts remain that only one
combination does not have a discrepancy, and, depending on their magnitude,
a.11of them could cause oeclusal and even some facial disharmonies.
It is reasonably easy to isolate a single discrepant tooth or pairs of homologous
discrepant teeth by simple visual examination. Unless the discrepancy is large,
it seldom causes oeclusal irregularities, However, when the discrepancy involves
other teeth, and this frequently is the case, the pattern may become complex and
smaller discrepancies may add up to produce disharmonies. In other words, there
is a direct relationship between the magnitude of the crown-size differences
(regardless of the number of teeth involved) and the presence of oeclusal ir-
regularities. There is also a direct relationship between the number of discrepant
teeth (regardless of the magnitude of the crown-size differences) and the presence
of occlusal irregularities. Consequently, there is a direct relationship between the
interaction of the magnitude of the discrepancy, the number of teeth involved,
and the presence of occlusal irregularities.
The associations between crown size and overbite, overjet, crowding, and
arch width are small (coefficients of correlation are 0.01, 0.14, 0.26, and 0.33,
 Table II. Percentile distribution of mesiodistal crown size of individual teeth and the sum
of the teeth, for girls

Central incisor i.1 7.5 X.1 s.3 8.3 X.6 s.7 8 .7 9.0 9.2 9.9
Lateral incisor 4.9 G.1 G.2 G.4 G.5 6.7 Ii.9 7.1 7.2 i.1 8.4
Canine 6.8 7.1 7.3 7.4 i-5 7.5 7.7 7.9 7.9 x.2 9.2
First premolar 5.7 6.1 6.6 6.7 6.9 6.9 7.1 7.2 7.:: 7.5 x.2
Second premolar 5.5 G.0 6.2 6.4 G.G ti.i GA ti.9 7.1 '7.3 7.6
First molar 8.9 9.6 9.9 10.0 10.3 10.4 10.3 10.G 10.7 11.0 11.8
Second molar 8.0 8.8 9.3 9.5 9.6 9.8 10.0 10.0 10.3 10.5 11.1
Total crown size 82.5 86 . 1 89 .4 L.‘. ” 92.7 97L. G 9.k.s
01 I 95.4 97.3 98.4 104.3
(excluding
second molars)

Mandibttln~
Central incisor 4.5 4.9 5.0 5.0 5.3 5.4 5.3 5.6 5.7 6.8 6 *<5
Lateral incisor 5.0 5.5 5.6 5.8 5.9 6.0 6.0 6.1 6.2 6.4 6.9
Canine 5.6 6.1 6.2 6 .4 6.5 6.7 6.8 6.9 7.0 7.1 7.7
First premolar 6.1 6.4 6.7 8.8 6.9 7.0 7.1 7.1 7.2 7.5 8.0
Second premolar 6.1 6.5 6.8 6.9 7.1 7.2 7.3 7.4 7.5 7.5 5.4
First molar 8.7 10.0 10.3 10.4 10.6 10.8 10.9 11.0 11.1 11.6 12.4
Second molar 7.8 8.8 9.0 9.3 9.5 9.7 9.9 10.0 10.4 10.7 11.0
Total crown size 75.7 80.5 83.0 83.5 84.4 85.:: 86.4 87.6 89.1 90.0 97.0
(excluding
second molars)

respectively*). However, on an individual basis, any of these associations can

be illustrated.
It was the purpose of the present study to examine the possibility of using
a norm of mesiodistal size of the permanent teeth for locating and analyzing
crown-size discrepancies. The analysis proposed would contribute to a more
complete evaluation of intraoral etiologic factors and a more precise diagnosis
and prognosis of the dental problem.

Procedure

The me&distal crown sizes of fifty-one boys and fifty girls of Northwest
European ancestry selected from the Child Study Clinic of the University of
Oregon Dental School are presented in Tables I and II. These tables were applied
to selected cases for the analysis of their size relationships. The measurements
were taken by the data-acquisition method described by us in a previous publica-
tion.g The method permits programming of distances between any of the mesial
and distal landmarks recorded. Most distances obtained with a Boley gauge were
not significantly different from similar measurements obtained with our previous
procedure. The reproducibility of measurements in study casts varies from
+0.05 to ~0.11 mm. for the central incisors and canines. Crown size was defined
anthropometrically as the greatest distance between the points of interproximal
contact. Teeth of the right and the left sides were considered independently;
Volume 59 Permanent mesiodistal crown size 491
Number 5

that is, 102 maxillary permanent central incisors were used to compute the
statistics in the group of boys.
The elements utilized for the analysis of each subject were (1) a Boley gauge
that allows readings accurate to 0.1 mm., on which the tips of the gauge are
trimmed to facilitate the measurements, (2) measurements from study casts of
the right or left mesiodistal crown size (whichever allowed a more accurate
estimate), (3) the norms of mesiodistal crown size shown in Table I. The
mesiodistal crown size of each tooth, discriminated by sex and arch, is located
in the table and the rank along the percentile scale is plotted along the similar
percentile scale of the figure. The points representing the maxillary teeth are
joined with straight lines, the same as the points representing the mandibular
teeth, and the lines facilitate the comprehensive examination of the differences,
as well as the patterns. The upper part of the figures appraise the maxillary and
th.e mandibular anterior teeth, whereas the lower part appraise the posterior
teeth.
The analysis of the crown-size patterns as factors associated with malocclu-
sion should be preceded by an evaluation of the role that skeletal and muscular
factors may have played in its development. As a unit, they contribute to a more
accurate diagnosis of the dental problem.
Some of the characteristics that may be studied with the assistance of the
table are (1) the size of the maxillary teeth as a whole relative to the size of the
mandibular teeth as a whole, (2) the size of individual teeth or groups of teeth
relative to individual teeth or groups of teeth and individual or groups of
antagonist teeth, (3) discrepancies between right and left sides and, in all cases,
the direction of the discrepancy if present (small, average, large) and their
mlagnitude (difference in percentiles) .

Discussion of selected occlusions

Two subjects were selected as representatives of good occlusion to illustrate

the uniqueness of each subject and the magnitude of differences that can exist
without detrimental clinical significance. Common to both occlusions are small
molars. Other subjecbs with good occlusion showed crown-size patterns different
from those illustrated here.
Fig. 1 shows good occlusion and excellent crown-size relationships in a boy
14 years of age. The cephalogram illustrates a balanced profile. The study casts
show a Class I molar relationship, excellent interdigitation, small overjet,
moderate overbite, and minor interdental spacing and rotations. The vertical
nomograph illustrates excellent crown-size relationships; the points representing
each tooth are joined with straight lines to facilitate the analysis. As a whole, the
maxillary and the mandibular teeth are small (beneath the tenth percentile).
Although the maxillary canines are proportionately the largest teeth (in the
twenty-fifth percentile), there are no visible effects on interdigitation. The
consistently small teeth were decisive factors in the development of the occlusion.
Fig. 2 shows good occlusion and favorable crown-size discrepancy in a 12-
year-old boy. The cephalogram illustrates a balanced profile in spite of the labial
inclination of the incisors. The study casts show a Class I molar relationship,
 Small Average Large
r 1 r1
Min IO 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 Max

1 x ’ I I / 1 , I / /
8.1 ,N, I I i I I I1 /
Inc. I L-~--L-~--L-i--L-J--l
/ I I I I I I I I
5.0 I I I E
----- ;/ I I I: I / I[ 1:
6.2
;+;-yy-; ; .$
$

I I I I
I I / I I I , I q
I I I 1 I I I I
J--L-I--L-J--L-J--I
I I I I I / I I
I I I I I I I I
I 1 1 I I I I I
6.6
Pm I I--t-i--L-J-i-i--:

6.5 I I I I I : I I
----7 I I I I ) I I I
I I I I I I I I
Pm. 2 cl L!% l--L-J--L-J--L-J--L-J--l

6.4 yc, ; j ( / / 1 j / 1
-----
I I I I I I I I I
J--L-J--L-J--L--l--L-J--l

I:; ; ; / ; / ; ; )
I I I
I I;- Moxil. Teeth I I I
*vs. L _I _ 1 I - - Mand. Teeth l--J--l
X Moxil. Total Crown Sire
9.3 /
N Mond. Total Crown Size

Fig. 1. Good occlusion and excellent crown-size

relationships in a 14-year-old boy.
 Permanent mesiodistal crown size 493

Small Average Large

1 I I 1
Min IO 20 30 40 :O 60 70 eo 90 Mm

Inc. I J--L-J--L-J--I

I I I
I I 1
L-J--L-J L-J--t
Inc. 2
I I I
6.0 ; ; ; ; I I I
----1 I I I I I
6.21 I I I I I I I
C. L-J--L-J--L-\--L L-J--I
I I I
t I I

7.1 I
Pm.1 L-
I I I
7.1 ;
----1
6.4 I I I I I I I I
Pm.2 I--
6.9 ;
----1
9.9 I
M. I L- L-J--L-A--L-J--L-J--I

10.1 ;
----1 1 I I I I
9.1 I I I I
\; ,, g;;,;;;
M.2 :- 1 -- l--J--I
9.4 )( Maxil.Total Crown Size
,
N blond. Totol Crown Size

Fig. 2. Good occlusion and favorable crown-size

discrepancy in a 12-year-old boy.
494 Sank and Hm:wrtr. 11IIPt’..I. 0rfh0doNt.
.Ilfr?/ 1 I): 1

excellent interdigitation, small overjct and overbite, and minor interdental

spacing or rotations. The vertical nomograph illustrates a discrepancy between
the anterior and posterior teeth. The small ,secord prcmolars and first mnlars,
the moderately small central incisors, and the labial inclination of the incisors
contribute favorably to development. of the occlusion. The maxillary anterior
teeth vary, in a.n orderly manner, from moderately small central incisors to
moderately large canines. The posterior t,eeth of both arches show a pattern of
anteroposterior size reduction. The size relationships between pairs of anta.gonist
teeth show a minor discrepancy at the lateral incisor and canine levels. The
moderately large maxillary canines seem t,o be preventing the further mcsial
migration of the mandibular first premolars which, in turn, may have resulted
in I.5 mm. of spacing between the mandibular canines and first premolars.
Fig. 3 shows occlusal irregularit,ies and mesiodistal crown-size discrepancies
in a boy 12 years of age. Crowding of the mandibular incisors is a common
feature among malocclusions. It is found associated wit,h (1) mesiodistal crown-
size discrepancies, (2) the pattern of mandibular and maxillary growth, (3)
imbalance between the dental arches and the oral and perioral musculature,
(4) habits, (5) premature loss of deciduous teeth accompanied by mesial
migration of posterior teeth, (6) displaced formation and development of
permanent teeth, and (7) combinations of the reasons mentioned.
The cephalogram illustrates a balanced profile. The upright position of the
mandibular incisors suggests a pattern of predominantly forward mandibular
growth. The study casts show a Class I molar relationship, considerable crowd-
ing and tooth displacement in the mandibular arch, crowding and spacing in the
maxillary arch, small overjet, and moderate overbite.
The vertical nomograph illustrates several crown-size discrepancies. Al-
though, as a whole, the mandibular teet,h are large, the central incisors are
relatively the largest. This difference, the forward growth of the mandible, and
the overbite contributed to the crowding of the incisors. As a whole, the man-
dibular teeth are relatively larger than the maxillary teeth. This difference and
the relatively small size of the maxillary second premolars contributed to the
maxillary interdental spacing. The crowding between the right maxillary central
and lateral incisors is mostly due to the large central incisors.
A treatment alternative may include selective mesiodistal grinding of major
discrepant teeth and minor tooth movement.
Fig. 4 shows occlusal irregularities and mesiodistal crown-size discrepancies
in a 14-year-old girl. Malocclusions wit,11 labially displaced canines are common.
They are often found associated with crown-size discrepancies. In five of seven
subjects observed with displaced maxillary canines, malocclusions were asso-
ciated with different combinations of large teeth.
The cephalogram in Fig. 4 illustrates a balanced profile. The labial inclination
of the mandibular incisors suggests a pattern of predominantly downward man-
dibular growth. The study casts show a Class I molar relationship on the right
and a Class II relationship on the left side, considerable tooth displacement,
small overjet, and overbite. The vertical nomograph illustrates the pattern of the
discrepancy. The large maxillary premolars and central and lateral incisors ~1~s
 Volume
Xumber
59
5
Permanent mesiodistal crown size 495

Small Average Large

I 1 I 1
Min IO 20 30 40 S’O 60 70 80 90 Max

Inc. I L-J--L-J--L

6.0; 1 ) ; ;
---- I I I I
7.1: I I I I
Inc. 2 L-J--L-J--L

6.4; ; ; ; ; ] ; I I I c
----

e.0: I I I I I
C. L-J--L-J--L

11.3; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ;
----
1 I I I I I
- Maxil. Teeth I I I
M.2 ,L _ 1 _ _ I .. - Mand. Teeth L-J--I
)( Maxil. Total Crown Size
I N Mond. Total Crown Size

Fig. 3. Occlusal irregularities and mesiodistal

crown-size discrepancies in a 12-year-old boy.
 SllV2ll Averoge Large
I 1 r-7
Min IO 20 30 40 ;o 60 70 80 90 Max

9.61 : : I iI I !I I, 1I IX!
’ N ’

Inc. 2 L-J--L-J--L-J--L-J--L

’
----1 I I I I
7.91 ; I I I I I
L-A..-L-J--C-J--L-
C.

Pm. I L-J--L-J--L-J--L->--L-J.

7.8 j / I ; j : ; / /
----1 I I I I I ! I 3
7.21 I I I I I I I I I
I-J--L-J--L-J--L-J--L I J
Dm. 2
8.1; I ; ; ; / ; / j \;
---1 I I I I I I I 4
11.5i I I I , I I / I I
M.I L-J--L-J--L-I--L-J--L-J

/
----1 1 I I
I I ! - Moxll.Teeth / ( I
M.2 I- _ J _ _ ;- - Mand. Teeth L-J--l
/ X Maxil. Crown
Total Size
/ N Mand. Total Crown Size

Fig. 4. Occlusal irregularities and mesiodistal

crown-size discrepancies in a 14-year-old girl.
‘Volume 59 Permanent mesiodistal crown size 497
;Vumber 5

the mesial migration of posterior teeth reduced the space available for the
canines. Similarly, the large mandibular premolars and central and lateral
-incisors contributed to the displacement of the left mandibular canine and the
.right central incisor. The size relationships between pairs of antagonist teeth
*are excellent. This, in turn, should reflect on the interdigitation during ortho-
adontic treatment.
Fig. 5 illustrates bimaxillary protrusion and mesiodistal crown-size discrep-
ancy in a 14-year-old boy. The eephalogram illustrates a profile that could be
modified favorably by orthodontic treatment. The study casts show a Class I
molar relationship, considerable labial inclination of the maxillary and man-
dibular incisors, large overjet, and moderate overbite. The vertical nomograph
shows the pattern of the discrepancy. The large mandibular teeth contributed
to the crowding of the mandibular canines. The marked labial inclination of the
maxillary incisors is due in part to their large crown size. The large teeth, the
overjet, and the labial inclination of the incisors determined the protrusive facial
profile.
Fig. 6 shows occlusal irregularities and mesiodistal crown-size discrepancies
in a girl 14 years of age. The cephalogram illustrates a profile that could be
modified favorably by orthodontic treatment. The study casts show a Class I
molar relationship, crowding of the mandibular incisors, small overjet, and
moderate overbite. The vertical nomograph illustrates several discrepancies. The
small mandibular second premolars resulted in an end-to-end first premolar
relationship. The large maxillary second premolars and the small mandibular
second premolars resulted in an end-to-end second premolar relationship. The
larger mandibular lateral incisors, canines, and first premolars contributed to
the development of crowding of the mandibular central incisors.
A treatment alternative may include selective mesiodistal grinding of dis-
crepant teeth and minor tooth movement.

Summary

This article refers to the mesiodistal size of the permanent teeth and presents
an effective way of locating and analyzing crown-size discrepancies. The analysis
proposed contributes to a more complete study of intraoral etiologic factors and
a more precise diagnosis and prognosis of the dental problem. It has been
illustrated that crown-size patterns differ greatly, even among good occlusions
(Figs. 1 and 2). Common to both subjects are the small premolars and molars.
Favorable crown-size discrepancies (Fig. 2) usually involve smaller teeth, par-
ticularly posterior teeth, which allow flexibility for the self-correction of minor
anterior space deficiencies.
In contrast, the remaining figures illustrate various crown-size discrepancies
and the resulting malocclusions, Irregularities associated with the size dis-
harmonies include (I) crowding of the mandibular incisors, (2) labial displace-
ment of canines, (3) end-to-end premolar relationships, and (4) marked labial
inclination of the anterior teeth.
The effects on interdigitation of discrepant teeth must be differentiated from
the effects of rotations and tipping of the teeth. Fig. 5 shows Class I molar and
 Small Average Large
r 1 r---1
Min IO 20 30 40 510 60 70 RO 90 Max

I 9.41
I Inc. I -’ L-J--L-J--L-J.--L-

5.81 j ; ; ; I I
_---
I I I I / I
7.7: I I I I 1 I
L-J--L-J--L-I--L-
Inc. 2
6.4; I ; ; ; / ;
---- 1 I I I I 1 I
8.7 I I I
C. L-J--Le.J--L-A--L-I--#L-J.

pm. I L-J--L-J--L--!--L-A---L- .

7.7; ; / ; ; ; ; I I
----7 I I I I I
7.41 I I I I I I P / ’
Pm. 2 - I-J--L-J--L-I--L-J--~-A.
I I
7.8; / I
----1 I I I ! I )
II.31 I I
Y. I L-J--L-J- - L--.-- L--l--
I /
il.81 / / I I /
---- I I
11.5: I I- Maxil. Teeth
M.2 L-i--l-- Mond. Teeth “ii L-J
X Maxil. Total Crown Size
11.3;
N Mand. Total Crown Size
Fig. 5. Bimaxillary protrusion and mesiodistal
crown-size discrepancy in a 14-year-old boy.
Volume 59 Permana~~t mesiodistal crown size 499
iTumber 5

Small Average Large

I I I I
Min IO 20 30 40 5’0 60 70 80 90 Max

Inc. I L -J--L-J--L-J--L
I , I I I I
5.6; I I I I I l
---- I I I I I I
7.0: I I I I I I
Inc. 2 L -J--L-J--L-J--L

6.4 I
----_ 1
8.1 I
L
C.
I
7.2 I
l-
7.4 I I
Pm.1 L -J- -_I
I
7.4 I I
----1 ’ c
7.2 I ’ 2
Pm.2 k --I 2
I
6.6, , k
‘P
----1
10.3 ’
L -JJ-
M. I
I I I I I I I I
10.8.; I I I I I I I I
----1 I I I
i- Maxil. Teeth I I I
M,2 : _ J--I-- Mand.Teeth L-J--i
X Maxil.Total Crown Size
I N Mand. Total Crown Size

Fig. 6. Occlusal irregularities and mesiodistal

crown-size discrepancies in a 14-year-old girl.
500 Sani~t artd Sn~wu I if!,‘/ .I ~~tYhorlo1zf.
Wfl?l 197 I

first premolar relationships ; however, there is a trntienry towar{ iI11 rnc{-tc,-cltrtl

second premolar relationship becnuse of rnesial i nvlinatioll 01: tllr, rn:kll;~ q
second premolar.
The complexiQ of intcbrdigitation ill orthodontic: treatment, is emphasizwl
by the theoretical existence of more than 22,000 billion possible combinations
of crown-size discrepancies (excluding the third mol;r~rx ).
The authors wish to acknowledge the assistance of Douglas L. Buck, Associate Professor
of Orthodontics, and Mr. Donald R. Thomas, Programmer.

REFERENCES

1. Seipel, C. M.: Variation of tooth position, Srensk Tandlak. T. 39: Supplement, 1946.
2. LundstrFm, A.: Intermaxillary tooth width ratio and tooth alignment and orrlusion,
Acta Odont. Stand. 12: 265-292, 1954.
3. Bolton, TV. A.: The clinical application of a tooth size analysis, Antsa. ,J. ORTIIODONT.
48: 504-529, 1962.
4. Steadman, S. R.: Predetermining the overbite and overjet, Angle Orthodont. 19: 101.
105, 1949.
5. Neff, C. W.: The size relationship between maxillary and mandibular segments of the
arch, Angle Orthodont. 27: 138-147, 1957.
6. Neff, C. W.: Tailored occlusion with the anterior coefficient, AMER. J. ORTHODONT. 35:
309-333, 1949.
7. Gamow, G.: One two three . . . infinity, Bantam Science and Mathematics, New York, 1967,
Bantam Books, Inc., pp. 242.
S. Solow, B.: The pattern of craniofacial associations, Acta Odont. &and. 24: Supp. 46,
1966.
9. Savara, B. S., and Sanin, C.: A new data acquisition method for measuring dentitions
and tests of accuracy, Amer. J. Phys. Anthrop. 30: 315-318, 1969.
10. Horowitz, S. L., and Hixon, E. H.: The nature of orthodontic diagnosis, St. Louis, 1966,
The C. V. Mosby Company, p. 155.
11. Sanin, C., Savara, B. S., Clarkson, Q. D., and Thomas, D. R.: Prediction of occlusion by
measurements of the deciduous dentition, AMER. 5. ORTHODONT. 57: 561-572, 1970.
12. Hunter, W. S., and Priest, W. R.: Errors and discrepancies in measurement, .r. Dent.
Res. 39: 405-414, 1960.
13. Riedel, R. A.: Retent,ion. 1% Graber, T. M. (editor): Current orthodontic concepts and
techniques, Philadelphia, 1969, W. B. Saunders Compan.v, chap. 9.

611 S.W. Ca,mpus Dr.