Research Article
Accuracy of Four Tooth Size Prediction Methods on Malay Population
Table 4
Comparison between actual and predicted values for each tested method. Females samplesa.
| Actual (mm) (C + P1 + P2) Mean (SD) | Tested methods | | Predicted (mm) (C + P1 + P2) Mean (SD) | Actual-predicted mean differenceb (mm) (95% CI) | P value* |
| Maxilla = 21.99 (1.03)
| Moyers 50% | Maxilla | 22.37 (0.64) | −0.38 (−0.59, −0.17) | <0.001 | Mandible | 22.00 (0.69) | −0.91 (−1.11, −0.73) | <0.001 | Tanaka and Johnston | Maxilla | 22.34 (0.58) | −0.35 (−0.55, −0.14) | <0.001 | Mandible | 21.84 (0.58) | −0.75 (−0.95, −0.56) | 0.001 | Mandible = 21.08 (1.05)
| Ling and Wong | Maxilla | 22.2 (0.58) | −0.21 (−0.41, 0.00) | 0.06 | Mandible | 21.18 (0.58) | −0.10 (−0.30, 0.09) | 0.29 | Jaroontham and Godfrey | Maxilla | 22.27 (0.57) | −0.28 (−0.49, −0.07) | <0.01 | Mandible | 22.51 (0.62) | −0.42 (−0.62, −0.23) | <0.001 |
|
|
aSample size: 120.
bIndependent test.
*Significant at .
|