• Posted by Joti Kaler on January 8, 2023 at 2:51 pm

    If you look at the mandibular incisor it looks extruded more than 0.9mm? I’m assuming that image is representative of 1 year and the associated numbers. I keep missing these questions so I thought a good step would be to try to visualize this image and compare.

    Chad Carter (Course Director) replied 1 year, 1 month ago 5 Members · 6 Replies
  • 6 Replies
  • Avatar

    Greg Gittleman (Course Director) Gittleman (Course Director)

    Moderator
    January 12, 2023 at 7:42 pm

    Hi Joti! Just to ensure I’m responding to your question, what image are you referring to? Is it the one from the Buschang article?

    I agree with you, these images can be confusing, but it’s really important to understand what they’re showing to determine the difference between expected growth and treatment.

    • Avatar

      Joti Kaler

      Member
      January 13, 2023 at 10:10 am

      Yes! So if you look at the molar vs incisor it is both 0.9mm extrusion but they look very different. I keep missing these questions on the sample!

      • Avatar

        Anish Gala

        Member
        February 2, 2023 at 11:35 pm

        I agree these eruptions due to growth or poor vertical management are very confusing.

        • Avatar

          Greg Gittleman (Course Director) Gittleman (Course Director)

          Moderator
          February 5, 2023 at 7:15 am

          I couldn’t agree more. It gets difficult having to speculate on tenths of a millimeter when given a drawing of a tooth with no actual measurements. I do believe that it’s important to know the general trends and what the overall expectations should be in the absence of intervention, and then be able to distinguish if the intervention had a significant impact.

  • Avatar

    Alyssa Domico

    Member
    January 26, 2024 at 9:21 pm

    I had noticed this too – that, while the mandibular incisor vertical change and mandibular molar vertical change is 0.9 mm, the 0.9 mm at the mandibular incisor looks to be way larger in magnitude. I understand drawings aren’t perfect and it’s more important to understand general trends, but I figured I would clarify on this to make sure I’m not misinterpreting. Would it be okay to roughly base our estimate for the lower incisor vertical change on the magnitude for the the molar drawing, or is there any reason it appears to be larger between the two? So far when I’ve been practicing, I’ve tried to eyeball 1.8 mm as a reference for 2 years of treatment, rather than going straight off that drawing. Thank you very much for the help and advice!

    • Avatar

      Chad Carter (Course Director)

      Member
      January 28, 2024 at 3:01 pm

      Yes, Eyeballing appropriate to crown height is what I have found helpful. So a mandibular incisor is about 10mm (9.5 but 10 sounds better)… so 2 years of growth should show about 20% of the traced crown height erupting.

      -Carter

The forum ‘Synapse Orthodontics: Module 3’ is closed to new discussions and replies.

Start of Discussion
0 of 0 replies June 2018
Now