The korean journal of orthodontics (대한치과교정학회지)

The Korean Association Of Orthodontists (대한치과교정학회)
권호 표지
DOI QR코드

DOI QR Code

Comparison between dental and basal arch forms in normal occlusion and Class III malocclusions utilizing cone-beam computed tomography

  • Suk, Kyung Eun (Department of Orthodontics, Seoul St. Mary's Hospital, The Catholic University of Korea) ;
  • Park, Jae Hyun (Postgraduate Orthodontic Program, Arizona School of Dentistry & Oral Health, A.T. Still University) ;
  • Bayome, Mohamed (Department of Dentistry, The Catholic University of Korea College of Medicine) ;
  • Nam, Young-Ok (Department of Dental Hygiene, Wonkwang Health Science University) ;
  • Sameshima, Glenn T. (Department of Orthodontics, School of Dentistry, University of Southern California) ;
  • Kook, Yoon-Ah (Department of Orthodontics, Seoul St. Mary's Hospital, The Catholic University of Korea)
  • Received : 2012.05.17
  • Accepted : 2012.10.09
  • Published : 2013.02.25
Download PDF
⟨ Previous Next ⟩

Abstract

Objective: The purpose of this study was to investigate the relationship between the mandibular dental and basal arch forms in subjects with normal occlusion and compare them with those of Class III malocclusion using cone-beam computed tomography (CBCT). Methods: CBCT images of 32 normal occlusion (19 males, 13 females; 24.3 years) and 33 Class III malocclusion subjects (20 males, 13 females, 22.2 years) were selected. Facial axis and root center points were identified from the left to right mandibular first molars. Distances between the facial axis and root center points for each tooth were calculated, and 4 linear and 2 ratio variables were measured and calculated for each arch form. The variables were compared between groups by independent t-test. Pearson correlation coefficient was applied to assess the relationships between dental and basal variables within each group. Results: The mandibular dental and basal intercanine widths were significantly greater in the Class III group than in normal occlusion subjects (p < 0.05). The dental and basal intercanine widths as well as the dental and basal intermolar widths were strongly correlated in normal occlusion and moderately correlated in Class III malocclusion. Conclusions: The dental arch form demon strated a strong positive correlation with the basal arch form in the normal occlusion group and moderate correlation in the Class III malocclusion group. These results might be helpful for clinicians to have a better understanding of the importance of basal arch form in the alveolar bone.

Keywords

References

  1. Howes AE. Model analysis for treatment planning: a portion of a symposium on case analysis and treatment planning. Am J Orthod 1952;38:183-207. https://doi.org/10.1016/0002-9416(52)90107-3
  2. Rees DJ. A method for assessing the proportional relation of apical bases and contact diameters of the teeth. Am J Orthod 1953;39:695-707. https://doi.org/10.1016/0002-9416(53)90122-5
  3. Stevens DR, Flores-Mir C, Nebbe B, Raboud DW, Heo G, Major PW. Validity, reliability, and reproducibility of plaster vs digital study models: comparison of peer assessment rating and Bolton analysis and their constituent measurements. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop 2006;129:794-803. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ajodo.2004.08.023
  4. Quimby ML, Vig KW, Rashid RG, Firestone AR. The accuracy and reliability of measurements made on computer-based digital models. Angle Orthod 2004;74:298-303.
  5. Ball RL, Miner RM, Will LA, Arai K. Comparison of dental and apical base arch forms in Class II Division 1 and Class I malocclusions. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop 2010;138:41-50. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ajodo.2008.11.026
  6. Gupta D, Miner RM, Arai K, Will LA. Comparison of the mandibular dental and basal arch forms in adults and children with Class I and Class II malocclusions. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop 2010;138:10.e1-8.
  7. Ronay V, Miner RM, Will LA, Arai K. Mandibular arch form: the relationship between dental and basal anatomy. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop 2008;134: 430-8. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ajodo.2006.10.040
  8. Cha BK, Lee YH, Lee NK, Choi DS, Baek SH. Soft tissue thickness for placement of an orthodontic miniscrew using an ultrasonic device. Angle Orthod 2008;78:403-8. https://doi.org/10.2319/051607-237.1
  9. Berco M, Rigali PH Jr, Miner RM, DeLuca S, Anderson NK, Will LA. Accuracy and reliability of linear cephalometric measurements from cone-beam computed tomography scans of a dry human skull. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop 2009;136:17.e1-9.
  10. Damstra J, Fourie Z, Huddleston Slater JJ, Ren Y. Accuracy of linear measurements from cone-beam com puted tomography-derived surface models of different voxel sizes. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop 2010;137:16.e1-11.
  11. Tai K, Hotokezaka H, Park JH, Tai H, Miyajima K, Choi M, et al. Preliminary cone-beam computed tomo graphy study evaluating dental and skeletal changes after treatment with a mandibular Schwarz appliance. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop 2010; 138:262.e1-262.e1-11.
  12. Bayome M. Evaluation of three-dimensional relationships among skeletal, dentoalveolar, and soft tissue variables in normal occlusion sample [doctorial dissertation]. Seoul, Korea: The Catholic University of Korea; 2011.
  13. Kuntz TR, Staley RN, Bigelow HF, Kremenak CR, Kohout FJ, Jakobsen JR. Arch widths in adults with Class I crowded and Class III malocclusions compared with normal occlusions. Angle Orthod 2008;78:597-603. https://doi.org/10.2319/0003-3219(2008)078[0597:AWIAWC]2.0.CO;2
  14. Al-Khateeb SN, Abu Alhaija ES. Tooth size discrepancies and arch parameters among different maloc - clu sions in a Jordanian sample. Angle Orthod 2006; 76:459-65.
  15. Uysal T, Usumez S, Memili B, Sari Z. Dental and alveolar arch widths in normal occlusion and Class III malocclusion. Angle Orthod 2005;75:809-13.
  16. Slaj M, Spalj S, Pavlin D, Illes D, Slaj M. Dental archforms in dentoalveolar Class I, II and III. Angle Orthod 2010;80:919-24. https://doi.org/10.2319/112609-672.1
  17. Braun S, Hnat WP, Fender DE, Legan HL. The form of the human dental arch. Angle Orthod 1998;68:29-36.
  18. Andrews LF. The six keys to normal occlusion. Am J Orthod 1972;62:296-309. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0002-9416(72)90268-0
  19. Andrews LF, Andrews WA. The six elements of orofacial harmony. Andrews J 2000;1:13-22.
  20. Sarikaya S, Haydar B, Ciğer S, Ariyürek M. Changes in alveolar bone thickness due to retraction of anterior teeth. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop 2002;122:15-26. https://doi.org/10.1067/mod.2002.119804
  21. Shelley AM, Brunton P, Horner K. Subjective image quality assessment of cross sectional imaging methods for the symphyseal region of the mandible prior to dental implant placement. J Dent 2011;39:764-70. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jdent.2011.08.008
  22. Howes AE. A polygon portrayal of coronal and basal arch dimensions in the horizontal plane. Am J Orthod 1954;40:811-31. https://doi.org/10.1016/0002-9416(54)90077-9
  23. Kim KY, Bayome M, Kim K, Han SH, Kim Y, Baek SH, et al. Three-dimensional evaluation of the relationship between dental and basal arch forms in normal occlusion. Korean J Orthod 2011;41:288-96. https://doi.org/10.4041/kjod.2011.41.4.288
  24. Sergl HG, Kerr WJ, McColl JH. A method of measuring the apical base. Eur J Orthod 1996;18:479-83. https://doi.org/10.1093/ejo/18.5.479
  25. Ludlow JB, Ivanovic M. Comparative dosimetry of dental CBCT devices and 64-slice CT for oral and maxillofacial radiology. Oral Surg Oral Med Oral Pathol Oral Radiol Endod 2008;106:106-14. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tripleo.2008.03.018
  26. Scheid RC, Weiss G, Woelfel JB. Woelfel's dental anatomy. 8th ed. Philadelphia: Wolters Kluwer Health/Lippincott Williams & Wilkins; 2012.
  27. Bayome M, Sameshima GT, Kim Y, Nojima K, Baek SH, Kook YA. Comparison of arch forms between Egyptian and North American white populations. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop 2011;139:e245-52. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ajodo.2009.11.012
  28. 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;126:680-6. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ajodo.2003.10.038
  29. 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.

Cited by

  1. A secondary analysis to determine variations of dental arch measurements with age and gender among Ugandans vol.8, pp.None, 2015, https://doi.org/10.1186/s13104-015-1411-6
  2. Mathematical beta function formulation for maxillary arch form prediction in normal occlusion population vol.105, pp.2, 2013, https://doi.org/10.1007/s10266-016-0244-7
  3. Mandibular dental-basal arch forms in skeletal Class III patients with mandibular prognathism vol.76, pp.3, 2017, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.odw.2017.05.002
  4. An Evaluation of Mandibular Dental and Basal Arch Dimensions in Class I and Class II Division 1 Adult Syrian Patients using Cone-beam Computed Tomography vol.19, pp.4, 2013, https://doi.org/10.5005/jp-journals-10024-2279
  5. Influence of the anterior arch shape and root position on root angulation in the maxillary esthetic area vol.49, pp.2, 2013, https://doi.org/10.5624/isd.2019.49.2.123