Introduction: Tooth morphometrics show variations across gender, phenotypes, race, age and
populations. These variations are evolutionarily determined but maybe modified by environmental
factors such as socioeconomic conditions, nutrition, childhood health, maternal effects such as gestation
and systemic conditions. Despite strong genetic contribution, the tooth may fail to reach its maximum
potential size due to the role of environmental influences. A relation between tooth size and body size
would compound the notion that teeth size, though dependent on genetic contribution, are not insulated
from external influences. Previously attempts to corelate tooth size and body size by other authors
have shown differing results. There is also a dearth of information regarding the same on deciduous
dentition. Hence this study aims to corelate Body Mass Index (BMI) and clinical crown length (CL),
mesiodistal width (MDW) and buccolingual width (BLW) of primary maxillary canines and first molars,
among Chennai children. Materials and methods: A cross-sectional study was conducted among 100 school
going children, of both genders, in the age group of 3-6 years. Weight and height were calculated by
metric standards and BMI was obtained. The participants were grouped as healthy, underweight and
overweight. The different groups were measured intraorally, with a digital Vernier caliper for crown
lengths, mesiodistal and buccolingual widths of primary upper canines and molars. Data was statistically
analyzed. Results: Total of 49,22,18 belong to healthy, underweight and overweight. Comparison of the
mean (SD) of CL, MDW, BLW of upper primary canine and first molar among participants of different
body size using one-way ANOVA test was found to be statistically significant (P<0.05). Conclusion: A
positive correlation exists a between body mass index and tooth metrics. Evident deciduous crown
size variations of individuals of different BMI belonging to the same population should be taken into
consideration while studying population comparisons of different odontometric standards.
Original Article
English
P. 79-85