King's College London

Research portal

Relationship between maxillary central incisor proportions and facial proportions

Research output: Contribution to journalArticlepeer-review

Sapna Radia, Martyn Sherriff, Fraser McDonald, Farhad B. Naini

Original languageEnglish
JournalJournal of Prosthetic Dentistry
E-pub ahead of print13 Jan 2016


  • JPD Incisor proportions

    JPD_Incisor_proportions.docx, 65.2 KB, application/vnd.openxmlformats-officedocument.wordprocessingml.document

    Uploaded date:05 May 2016

    Version:Accepted author manuscript

    Licence:CC BY-NC-ND

King's Authors


Statement of problem No universally accepted parameter exists for selecting maxillary central incisors (MCIs) relative to facial proportions. Purpose The purpose of this study was to determine the relationship between MCIs and facial height and width in adults, intersex differences, and measurement differences between right and left MCI. Material and methods A prospective study was undertaken of 149 dental students (F:76; M:73) aged between 18 and 30 years. Anthropometric MCI and horizontal and vertical facial measurements were recorded with digital calipers by 1 operator. Correlation was investigated with Pearson correlation coefficients (α=.05). Two-sample t tests were used for intersex comparisons and paired t tests to compare right and left MCIs. Intraexaminer reliability was tested by remeasuring 25 participants and applying the Bland-Altman and Lin analyses. Results The mean MCI height was 10.28 mm (right and left) and the mean widths were 8.65 mm (right) and 8.66 mm (left). Intersex incisor differences existed for height measurements (M:F 0.54 mm [right], 0.46 mm [left]) and width measurements (M:F 0.26 mm) but not for width-to-height ratios (F=0.85; M=0.84). A mean ratio of 15.56 was found between bizygomatic width:tooth width (M=15.75, F=15.37) and of 17.93 between total face height:MCI height (M=17.97, F=17.89). Correlation coefficients were low for all tooth:face measurements. Intraexaminer reliability was clinically acceptable. Conclusions Men had larger teeth and faces but similar width:height ratios. There was no significant size difference between right and left MCI, little individual relationship between tooth:face proportions, and insignificant sex influence. The “biometric ratio”’ of 1:16 for MCI:bizygomatic width was not reconfirmed exactly. A ratio of 1:18 is proposed for MCI height to total face height (Tr-Me’) and 1:12 for face height (N’-Me’).

Download statistics

No data available

View graph of relations

© 2020 King's College London | Strand | London WC2R 2LS | England | United Kingdom | Tel +44 (0)20 7836 5454