Comparison of arch form between Koreans and Egyptians

Kabsoo Jang; KyungEun Suk; Mohamed Bayome; Yoonji Kim; Seong-Hun Kim; Yoon-Ah Kook

doi:10.4041/kjod.2010.40.5.334

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

Go to TopGo to Top Go to BottomGo to Bottom

TOOLS

Jang, Suk, Bayome, Kim, Kim, and Kook: Comparison of arch form between Koreans and Egyptians

Original Article

Korean Journal of Orthodontics

Korean Journal of Orthodontics 2010; 40(5): 334-341.

Published online: 31 October 2010

DOI: https://doi.org/10.4041/kjod.2010.40.5.334

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, Yoon-Ah Kook, DDS, MSD, PhD^e

^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; kook2002@catholic.ac.kr

Received 3 November 2009 Revised 22 May 2010 Accepted 25 May 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 and Tables

Fig. 1

Digitized contact points on a mandibular cast.

Fig. 2

A perpendicular line extended from a line connecting the contact points to find the clinical bracket points.

Fig. 3

Twelve bracket points and 4 linear measurements.

Table 1

Comparison of arch dimensions between Koreans and Egyptians by Angle classification

ANCOVA was performed and the table shows mean ± SE adjusted to age, gender, and arch form. ^*p < 0.01;^†p < 0.001.

Table 2

Frequency distribution of the different arch forms by Angle Classification and ethnic group

Data presented as % (n). ^*p < 0.05.

Table 3

Comparison of arch dimensions between Egyptians and Koreans by arch form type

ANCOVA was performed and the table shows mean ± standard error adjusted to age, gender, and Angle Classification. W/D ratio, Width/depth ratio. ^*p < 0.05; ^†p < 0.01; ^‡p < 0.001.

Table 4

Comparison of arch dimensions between male and female in each ethnic group

ANCOVA was performed, and means are adjusted for age and Angle classification. SE, Standard error; W/D ratio, width/depth ratio. ^*p < 0.05; ^†p < 0.01

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]. Available from: http://www.cia.gov/library/publications/the-world-factbook/print/eg.html.

17. Arab League. Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia [Internet]. Available from: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arab_League.

18. Andrews LF. Straight wire - the concept and appliance. 1989. San Diego: LA Wells.

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.

TOOLS

Similar articles