Background: To assess the accuracy of digital models generated using commercially available software to predict anterior teeth root inclination characteristics and compare the results to relevant data obtained from CBCT images. Material and Methods: Following sample size calculation and after application of inclusion and exclusion criteria, pre-treatment maxillary and mandibular plaster models and the corresponding CBCT scans of 31 patients attending a private orthodontic clinic were selected. The subjects were 10 males and 21 females with age range 12 to 40 years. Plaster models were scanned using the high resolution mode of an Ortho Insight 3D scanner and CBCT scans were taken using a Kodak 9500 Cone Beam 3D System machine. The teeth on the digital scans were segmented and virtual roots were predicted and constructed by the Ortho Insight 3D software. The long axes of the predicted roots and the actual roots, as segmented from the CBCT images, were computed using best-fit lines. The inter-axis angle was used to assess error in root inclination prediction by the software. Mann-Whitney and Kruskal-Wallis tests were used. Intra-examiner error was evaluated using the Bland-Altman method. Results: The maximum disparity in angle between images derived from digital models and CBCT data was almost 40 degrees (upper left canine). The upper and lower canines produced the worst results, followed by the lower lateral incisors. The upper central incisors showed the best results, although the maximum angle of difference exceeded 20 degrees (with the median around 8 degrees). Conclusions: Root morphology imaging prediction is not a primary function of this software and this study confirmed its limitation as a sole tool in routine clinical applications. At present these predictions cannot be considered accurate or reliable unless correlated clinically with a radiographic image. Digital models, CBCT, tooth root inclination prediction software.

OBJECTIVES: This study aimed to investigate size and shape variation of human premolars between Indigenous Australians and Australians of European ancestry, and to assess whether sex and ancestry could be differentiated between these groups using 3D geometric morphometrics. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Seventy dental casts from each group, equally subdivided by sex, were scanned using a structured-light scanner. The 3D meshes of upper and lower premolars were processed using geometric morphometric methods. Seventy-two landmarks were recorded for upper premolars and 50 landmarks for lower premolars. For each tooth type, two-way ANOVA was used to assess group differences in centroid size. Shape variations were explored using principal component analysis and visualized using 3D morphing. Two-way Procrustes ANOVA was applied to test group differences for ancestry and sex, and a "leave-one-out" discriminant function was applied to assess group assignment. RESULTS: Centroid size and shape did not display significant difference between the sexes. Centroid size was larger in Indigenous Australians for upper premolars and lower second premolars compared to the Australians of European ancestry. Significant shape variation was noted between the two ancestral groups for upper premolars and the lower first premolar. Correct group assignment of individual teeth to their ancestral groups ranged between 80.0 and 92.8% for upper premolars and 60.0 and 75.7% for lower premolars. DISCUSSION: Our findings provide evidence of significant size and shape variation in human premolars between the two ancestral groups. High classification rates based on shape analysis of upper premolars highlight potential application of geometric morphometrics in anthropological, bioarcheological and forensic contexts.

Objectives: To assess the effectiveness, clinical performance, and potential adverse effects of early anterior crossbite correction through opening of the bite. Subjects and methods: The sample consisted of 16 consecutive patients (8.0 ± 0.9, range: 6.2-9.3 years) with dental anterior crossbite in the mixed dentition who were treated through posterior bite opening. Patients were prospectively followed until a minimum of 6 months post-treatment and there were no drop-outs. Results: In 14 patients (87.5 per cent), the anterior crossbite was corrected. Results remained stable without any retention regime. Active treatment of the successfully treated cases lasted 2.5 months (range: 0.6-8.9). Crossbite correction of central incisors was achieved by a 2.05 mm (range: 0.97-5.45) forward movement and 9.25° (range: 2.32-14.52°) buccal inclination of the crowns (P < 0.05). The antagonists showed spontaneous adaptation of their position in the opposite direction (P < 0.05). No important adverse effects were recorded. Limitations: This was a non-comparative controlled study, on a limited sample. Conclusions: Bite opening is a promising, simple, and non-compliance approach for early dental anterior crossbite correction. The technique of 3D superimposition and analysis of digital models used here, allowed precise evaluation of single tooth movement in all three planes of space.