Journal List > Korean J Orthod > v.40(5) > 1043639

Korean J Orthod. 2010 Oct;40(5):334-341. Korean.
Published online October 31, 2010.  https://doi.org/10.4041/kjod.2010.40.5.334
Copyright © 2010 Korean Association of Orthodontists
Comparison of arch form between Koreans and Egyptians
Kabsoo Jang, DDS, MSD,a KyungEun Suk, DDS,b Mohamed Bayome, BDS, MMS,a Yoonji Kim, DDS, MSD, PhD,c Seong-Hun Kim, DDS, MSD, PhD,d and Yoon-Ah Kook, DDS, MSD, PhDe
aGraduate Student, Department of Orthodontics, Graduate School of Clinical Dental Science, The Catholic University of Korea, Seoul, Korea.
bResident, Department of Orthodontics, Seoul St. Mary's Hospital, The Catholic University of Korea, Seoul, Korea.
cAssistant Professor, Department of Orthodontics, Seoul St. Mary's Hospital, The Catholic University of Korea, Seoul, Korea.
dAssociate Professor, Department of Orthodontics, School of Dentistry, Kyunghee University, Seoul, Korea.
eProfessor, Department of Orthodontics, Seoul St. Mary's Hospital, The Catholic University of Korea, Seoul, Korea.

Corresponding author: Yoon-Ah Kook. Department of Orthodontics, Seoul St. Mary's Hospital, The Catholic University of Korea, 505 Banpo-dong, Seocho-gu, Seoul 137-040, Korea. +82 2 2258 1777; Email: kook2002@catholic.ac.kr
Received November 03, 2009; Revised May 22, 2010; Accepted May 25, 2010.

Abstract

Objective

The purpose of this study was to evaluate morphologic differences in the mandibular arch between Egyptian and Korean subjects.

Methods

The Egyptian sample consisted of 94 mandibular casts (35 Class I, 32 Class II and 27 Class III). The Korean sample consisted of 462 mandibular casts (114 Class I, 119 Class II, and 135 Class III). The most facial portion of 13 proximal contact areas was digitized from photocopied images of the mandibular dental arches. Clinical bracket points were calculated for each tooth. The subjects were grouped according to arch form to compare the frequency distribution of the 3 arch forms between the ethnic groups in each Angle classification.

Results

Egyptians had significantly narrower intermolar and intercanine widths (p < 0.001), and shallower intermolar and intercanine depths (p < 0.001) than Koreans. There was an even frequency distribution of the 3 arch forms within the Egyptian group (p = 0.46). However, in the Korean group, the most frequent arch form was the square arch form (46.7%), while the frequency of the tapered arch form was significantly lower (18.8%).

Conclusions

These results might provide helpful information in evaluating morphologic differences between ethnic groups in selection of preformed superelastic archwires.

Keywords: Archform; Arch dimension; Ethnic group; Korean; Egyptian

Figures


Fig. 1
Digitized contact points on a mandibular cast.
Click for larger image


Fig. 2
A perpendicular line extended from a line connecting the contact points to find the clinical bracket points.
Click for larger image


Fig. 3
Twelve bracket points and 4 linear measurements.
Click for larger image

Tables


Table 1
Comparison of arch dimensions between Koreans and Egyptians by Angle classification
Click for larger image


Table 2
Frequency distribution of the different arch forms by Angle Classification and ethnic group
Click for larger image


Table 3
Comparison of arch dimensions between Egyptians and Koreans by arch form type
Click for larger image


Table 4
Comparison of arch dimensions between male and female in each ethnic group
Click for larger image

References
1. de la Cruz A, Sampson P, Little RM, Artun J, Shapiro PA. Long-term changes in arch form after orthodontic treatment and retention. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop 1995;107:518–530.
2. Felton JM, Sinclair PM, Jones DL, Alexander RG. A computerized analysis of the shape and stability of mandibular arch form. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop 1987;92:478–483.
3. McLaughlin RP, Bennett JC. Arch form considerations for stability and esthetics. Rev Esp Orthod 2000;29:46–63.
4. Shapiro PA. Mandibular dental arch form and dimension: Treatment and postretention changes. Am J Orthod 1974;66:58–70.
5. Krishnan M, Kalathil S, Abraham KM. Comparative evaluation of frictional forces in active and passive self-ligating brackets with various archwire alloys. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop 2009;136:675–682.
6. Ferrario VF, Sforza C, Miani A Jr, Tartaglia G. Mathematical definition of the shape of dental arches in human permanent healthy dentitions. Eur J Orthod 1994;16:287–294.
7. Merz ML, Isaacson RJ, Germane N, Rubenstein LK. Tooth diameters and arch perimeters in a black and a white population. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop 1991;100:53–58.
8. Lee CH, Mo SS, Kang YG, Nojima K, Kim YH, Kook YA. Comparison of arch forms between Korean and Japanese in Class I, II, and III malocclusion. Korean J Orthod 2007;37:364–375.
9. Kunjur J, Sabesan T, Ilankovan V. Anthropometric analysis of eyebrows and eyelids: an inter-racial study. Br J Oral Maxillofac Surg 2006;44:89–93.
10. Behbehani F, Hicks EP, Beeman C, Kluemper GT, Rayens MK. Racial variations in cephalometric analysis between Whites and Kuwaitis. Angle Orthod 2006;76:406–411.
11. Lee JJ, Ramirez SG, Will MJ. Gender and racial variations in cephalometric analysis. Otolaryngol Head Neck Surg 1997;117:326–329.
12. Abd-el Samad Younes S. Maxillary arch dimensions in Saudi and Egyptian population sample. Am J Orthod 1984;85:83–88.
13. Bishara SE, Abdalla EM, Hoppens BJ. Cephalometric comparisons of dentofacial parameters between Egyptian and North American adolescents. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop 1990;97:413–421.
14. Sarhan OA, Diwan RR. Maxillary arch dimensions in Egyptian and British children. Odontostomatol Trop 1987;10:101–106.
15. Kook YA, Nojima K, Moon HB, McLaughlin RP, Sinclair PM. Comparison of arch forms between Korean and North American white populations. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop 2004;126:680–686.
16. The World Factbook, Egypt [Internet].
17. Arab League. Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia [Internet].
18. Andrews LF. In: Straight wire - the concept and appliance. San Diego: LA Wells; 1989.
19. Nummikoski P, Prihoda T, Langlais RP, McDavid WD, Welander U, Tronje G. Dental and mandibular arch widths in three ethnic groups in Texas: a radiographic study. Oral Surg Oral Med Oral Pathol 1988;65:609–617.
20. Collins BP, Harris EF. Arch form in American blacks and whites with malocclusions. J Tenn Dent Assoc 1998;78:15–18.
21. Burris BG, Harris EF. Maxillary arch size and shape in American blacks and whites. Angle Orthod 2000;70:297–302.
22. BeGole EA. Application of the cubic spline function in the description of dental arch form. J Dent Res 1980;59:1549–1556.
23. Bonwill WGA. Geometrical and mechanical laws of articulation. Trans Odont Soc Penn 1884-1885:119–133.
24. Camporesi M, Franchi L, Baccetti T, Antonini A. Thin-plate spline analysis of arch form in a Southern European population with an ideal natural occlusion. Eur J Orthod 2006;28:135–140.
25. Ferrario VF, Sforza C, Miani A Jr, Tartaglia G. Maxillary versus mandibular arch form differences in human permanent dentition assessed by Euclidean-distance matrix analysis. Arch Oral Biol 1994;39:135–139.
26. Noroozi H, Nik TH, Saeeda R. The dental arch form revisited. Angle Orthod 2001;71:386–389.
27. Taner TU, Ciger S, El H, Germeç D, Es A. Evaluation of dental arch width and form changes after orthodontic treatment and retention with a new computerized method. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop 2004;126:464–475.
28. Nojima K, McLaughlin RP, Isshiki Y, Sinclair PM. A comparative study of Caucasian and Japanese mandibular clinical arch forms. Angle Orthod 2001;71:195–200.
29. DeKock WH. Dental arch depth and width studied longitudinally from 12 years of age to adulthood. Am J Orthod 1972;62:56–66.
30. Haralabakis NB, Sifakakis I, Papagrigorakis M, Papadakis G. The correlation of sexual dimorphism in tooth size and arch form. World J Orthod 2006;7:254–260.
31. Braun S, Hnat WP, Fender DE, Legan HL. The form of the human dental arch. Angle Orthod 1998;68:29–36.
32. Kook YA, Bayome M, Park SB, Cha BK, Lee YW, Baek SH. Overjet at the anterior and posterior segments: three-dimensional analysis of arch coordination. Angle Orthod 2009;79:495–501.