Main Article Content
Background: Interproximal enamel reduction is a valuable procedure in orthodontics used in several conditions, however, not knowing the average value of proximal enamel thickness might lead to excess enamel removal and consequently to adverse effects.
Objective: The objective of this systematic review is to expose the average proximal enamel thicknesses found in the literature, and the differences that might be found between different ethnicities and age groups.
Search Methods: 5 electronic databases were used to perform the search. Representative keywords comprised of “enamel”, “thickness”, “orthodontics” “proximal thickness” and “quantification”; different combination of these keywords with truncation, and medical subject headings (MESH) were used.
Selection Criteria: In vitro and in vivo studies, where the quantification of the proximal enamel thickness of the mesial and distal sides were evaluated independently.
Data Collection and Analysis: The PICO model was used to evaluate and select the in vitro and in vivo studies. ROBINS-I tool was used to assess the risk of bias of non-randomized clinical studies and a modification of Cochrane risk of bias tool was implemented for the in vitro studies. The quality of evidence and results were evaluated using The Joanna Briggs Institute (JBI) Critical Appraisal checklist tools for Quasi-Experimental Studies.
Results: Literature search identified 3298 records from 5 databases. Ultimately, nine eligible studies were included in the review.
Conclusions: The proximal enamel thickness increases as we move distal through the arch and is greater on the distal side compared to the mesial side of each individual tooth. Additionally, there is no difference in the proximal enamel thickness between genders but there is between ethnicities.
De Felice ME, Nucci L, Fiori A, Flores-Mir C, Perillo L, Grassia V. Accuracy of interproximal enamel reduction during clear aligner treatment. Prog Orthod. 2020; 21(1):28.
Lapenaite E, Lopatiene K. Interproximal enamel reduction as a part of orthodontic treatment. Stomatologija. 2014;16(1):19-24
Livas C, Baumann T, Flury S, Pandis N. Quantitative evaluation of the progressive wear of powered interproximal reduction systems after repeated use: An in vitro study. J Orofac Orthop. 2020 Jan;81(1):22-29.
Pandya M, Diekwisch TGH. Enamel biomimetics-fiction or future of dentistry. Int J Oral Sci. 2019;11(1):8.
Schroeder HE, Listgarten MA. Fine structure of the developing epithelial attachment of human teeth. Monogr Dev Biol. 1971; 2:1-134.
Farooq I, Bugshan A. The role of salivary contents and modern technologies in the remineralization of dental enamel: a narrative review. F1000Res. 2020; 9:171.
Jarjoura K, Gagnon G, Nieberg L. Caries risk after interproximal enamel reduction. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop. 2006;130(1):26-30.
Sheridan JJ. Air-rotor stripping. J Clin Orthod. 1985; 19(1):43-59.
Sheridan JJ. Air-rotor stripping update. J Clin Orthod. 1987; 21(11):781-8.
Sheridan JJ, Hastings J. Air-rotor stripping and lower incisor extraction treatment. J Clin Orthod. 1992; 26(1):18-22.
Kapila SD, Nervina JM. CBCT in orthodontics: assessment of treatment outcomes and indications for its use. Dentomaxillofac Radiol. 2015; 44(1):20140282.
Berkhout WE, Suomalainen A, Brüllmann D, Jacobs R, Horner K, Stamatakis HC. Justification and good practice in using handheld portable dental X-ray equipment: a position paper prepared by the European Academy of DentoMaxilloFacial Radiology (EADMFR). Dentomaxillofac Radiol. 2015;44(6):20140343.
Yeom HG, Kim JE, Huh KH, Yi WJ, Heo MS, Lee SS, Choi SC. Correlation between spatial resolution and ball distortion rate of panoramic radiography. BMC Med Imaging. 2020; 20(1):68.
Zuñiga, J. Quantification by quadrants of the distortion present in conventional panoramic radiograph. Int. J. Morphol., 35(1):265-272, 2017
Moher D, Liberati A, Tetzlaff, J, Altman D.G; PRISMA Group. Preferred reporting items for systematic reviews and meta-analyses: the PRISMA Statement. Open Medicine, 2009; 3:e123–e130.
Schardt, C., Adams, M. B., Owens, T., Keitz, S., Fontelo, P. Utilization of the PICO framework to improve searching PubMed for clinical questions. BMC Medical Informatics and Decision Making, 2007; 7:16.
Sterne JAC, Hernán MA, Reeves BC, Savović J, Berkman ND, et al. ROBINS-I: a tool for assessing risk of bias in non-randomized studies of interventions. BMJ 2016; 355; i4919.
Koletsi D, Iliadi A, Eliades T, Eliades G. In Vitro Simulation and In Vivo Assessment of Tooth Wear: A Meta-Analysis of In Vitro and Clinical Research. Materials (Basel). 2019; 12(21):3575.
Tufanaru C, Munn Z, Aromataris E, Campbell J, Hopp L. Chapter 3: Systematic reviews of effectiveness. In: Aromataris E, Munn Z (Editors). Joanna Briggs Institute Reviewer's Manual. The Joanna Briggs Institute, 2017. Available from https://reviewersmanual.joannabriggs.org/
Vellini-Ferreira F, Cotrim-Ferreira F, Ribeiro A, Ferreira-Santos R. Mapping of proximal enamel thickness in permanent teeth. Braz. J. Oral Sci. 2012; 11(4): 481-485.
Fernandes S, Vellini-Ferreira F, Scavone-Junior H, Ferreira R. Crown dimensions and proximal enamel thickness of mandibular second bicuspids. Braz. oral res. 2011; 25(4): 324-330.
Sarig R, Vardimon AD, Sussan C, Benny L, Sarne O, Hershkovitz I, Shpack N. Pattern of maxillary and mandibular proximal enamel thickness at the contact area of the permanent dentition from first molar to first molar. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop. 2015; 147(4):435-44.
Akli E, Araujo EA, Kim KB, McCray JF, Hudson MJ. Enamel thickness of maxillary canines evaluated with microcomputed tomography scans. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop. 2020; 158(3):391-399.
Munhoz LO, Vellini-Ferreira F, Cotrim-Ferreira F, Ferreira R.I. Evaluation of proximal enamel thickness and crown measurements in maxillary first premolars. Braz. j. oral sci. 2012; 11:30-35.
Macha Ade C, Vellini-Ferreira F, Scavone-Junior H, Ferreira RI. Mesiodistal width and proximal enamel thickness of maxillary first bicuspids. Braz Oral Res. 2010; 24(1):58-63.
Hall NE, Lindauer SJ, Tüfekçi E, Shroff B. Predictors of variation in mandibular incisor enamel thickness. J Am Dent Assoc. 2007; 138(6):809-15.
Harris EF, Hicks JD. A radiographic assessment of enamel thickness in human maxillary incisors. Arch Oral Biol. 1998; 43(10):825-31.
Stroud JL, English J, Buschang HP. Enamel thickness of the posterior dentition: Its implications for nonextraction treatment. Angle Orthod 1998:68(2): 141-146
Zamira Kalemaj, Luca Levrini; Quantitative evaluation of implemented interproximal enamel reduction during aligner therapy:A prospective observational study. Angle Orthod. 2021; 91 (1): 61–66.
Borda AF, Garfinkle JS, Covell DA, Wang M, Doyle L, Sedgley CM. Outcome assessment of orthodontic clear aligner vs fixed appliance treatment in a teenage population with mild malocclusions. Angle Orthod. 2020;90:485–490
Elvis Barcoma, Bhavna Shroff, Al M. Best, Michael C. Shoff, Steven J. Lindauer; Interproximal reduction of teeth: Differences in perspective between orthodontists and dentists. Angle Orthod. 2015; 85 (5): 820–825.
Hudson A.L. A study of the effects of mesiodistal reduction of mandibular anterior teeth Am. J. Orthod. 1956; 42(8);615-624.
Zachrisson BU. Actual damage to teeth and periodontal tissues with mesiodistal enamel reduction ("stripping"). World J Orthod. 2004;5(2):178-83.
Banga K, Arora N, Kannan S, Singh AK, Malhotra A. Evaluation of temperature rise in the pulp during various IPR techniques-an in vivo study. Prog Orthod. 2020; 21(1):40.
Pindoria J, Fleming PS, Sharma PK. Inter-proximal enamel reduction in contemporary orthodontics. Br Dent J. 2016; 221(12):757-763.
Zachrisson B U, Nyøygaard L, Mobarak K . Dental health assessed more than 10 years after interproximal enamel reduction of mandibular anterior teeth. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop 2007; 131: 162–169.
Pinheiro M. Interproximal enamel reduction. World J Orthod 2002; 3: 223–232.
Stroud JL, Buschang PH, Goaz PW. Sexual dimorphism in mesiodistal dentin and enamel thickness. Dentomaxillofac Radiol. 1994; 23(3):169-71.
Harris EF, Hicks JD, Barcroft BD. Tissue contributions to sex and race: differences in tooth crown size of deciduous molars. Am J Phys Anthropol. 2001 Jul;115(3):223-37. doi: 10.1002/ajpa.1077. Erratum in: Am J Phys Anthropol 2002 Feb;117(2):194. PMID: 11424074.
Brokos Y, Stavridakis M, Bortolotto Ibarra T, Krejci I. Evaluation of enamel thickness of upper anterior teeth in different age groups by dental cone beam computed tomography scan in vivo. International Journal of Advances in Case Reports 2015;2(23):1396-1409.
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 4.0 International License.
Los autores/as conservan los derechos de autor y ceden a la revista el derecho de la primera publicación, con el trabajo registrado con la licencia de atribución de Creative Commons, que permite a terceros utilizar lo publicado siempre que mencionen la autoría del trabajo y a la primera publicación en esta revista.