The Journal of Contemporary Dental Practice

Register      Login



Volume / Issue

Online First

Related articles

VOLUME 22 , ISSUE 3 ( March, 2021 ) > List of Articles


Evaluation of Dental Crowding and Spacing in Relation to Tooth Size and Arch Dimensions in a Sample of Sudanese Adults

Raja AbdAlgadir Mustafa, Amal Hussein Abuaffan

Keywords : Arch dimension, Crowded, Spaced, Sudanese, Tooth size

Citation Information : Mustafa RA, Abuaffan AH. Evaluation of Dental Crowding and Spacing in Relation to Tooth Size and Arch Dimensions in a Sample of Sudanese Adults. J Contemp Dent Pract 2021; 22 (3):253-258.

DOI: 10.5005/jp-journals-10024-3065

License: CC BY-NC 4.0

Published Online: 27-01-2021

Copyright Statement:  Copyright © 2021; Jaypee Brothers Medical Publishers (P) Ltd.


Aims and objectives: This study aimed to compare tooth size and arch dimensions between normal, crowded, and spaced groups in a Sudanese sample. Material and methods: A sample of 312 university students, were selected and divided into normal, crowded, and spaced groups. Each group included 104 students with equal males to females ratios. Age was ranged from 16 to 26 years. Mesiodistal (MD) tooth width of all teeth (except molars), arch perimeters, and dimension at the level of intercanine, interpremolar, and intermolar were measured for each group. ANOVA and student t-test were performed for the comparison between groups. Results: The MD dimensions of all teeth are greater in crowded arches as compared to the teeth in normal dental arches, except for the width of the maxillary, left second premolar in females, and mandibular left second premolar in male. Spaced arches were presented with significantly smaller MD width in all teeth when compared to normal arches, except for the width of maxillary right second premolar, maxillary left first premolar, mandibular right and left second premolars in female, and maxillary right second premolar in male. Crowded arches exhibit the largest total tooth material followed by normal and spaced dentition. Spaced arches show the widest arch dimension and perimeters followed by normal and crowded dentitions. Conclusions: Both tooth size and arch dimensions contribute to dental crowding and spacing. Clinical relevance: Since the size of the teeth and dental arches affect the space availability of the dentition. These factors should be considered in the initial stages of orthodontic treatment planning to avoid compromised treatment outcomes.

  1. Faruqui S, Fida M, Shaikh A. Comparison of tooth and arch dimensions in dental crowding and spacing. Pak Orthod J 2012;4(2):48–55.
  2. Moorrees CF, Reed RB. Correlations among crown diameters of human teeth. Arch Oral Biol 1964;9(6):685–697. DOI: 10.1016/0003-9969(64)90080-9.
  3. Puri N, Pradhan KL, Chandna A, et al. Biometric study of tooth size in normal, crowded, and spaced permanent dentitions. Am J Orthod Dentofac Orthop 2007;132(3):279.e7–279.e14. DOI: 10.1016/j.ajodo.2007.01.018.
  4. Gelgör İE, Karaman Aİ, Ercan E. Prevalence of malocclusion among adolescents in central anatolia. Eur J Dent 2007;1(3):125. DOI: 10.1055/s-0039-1698327.
  5. Merz ML, Isaacson RJ, Germane N, et al. Tooth diameters and arch perimeters in a black and a white population. Am J Orthod Dentofac Orthop 1991;100(1):53–58. DOI: 10.1016/0889-5406(91)70049-3.
  6. Randzic D. Dental crowding and its relationship to mesiodistal crown diameters and arch dimension. Am J Orthod Dentofac Orthop 1988;94(1):50–56. DOI: 10.1016/0889-5406(88)90450-7.
  7. Howe RP, McNamara JA, O’Connor KA. An examination of dental crowding and its relationship to tooth size and arch dimension. Am J Orthod 1983;83(5):363–373. DOI: 10.1016/0002-9416(83)90320-2.
  8. Poosti M, Jalali Ta. Tooth size and arch dimension in uncrowded versus crowded Class I malocclusions. J Contemp Dent Pract 2007;8(3):45–52. DOI: 10.5005/jcdp-8-3-45.
  9. Kaundal J, Negi N, Sharma V, et al. Evaluation of crowding in relation to tooth size, arch size and arch form in North-East Indian population. J Pharm Biomed Sci 2013;31(31):1199–1204.
  10. Bugaighis I, Elorfi S. An odontometric study of tooth size in normal, crowded and spaced dentitions. J Orthod Sci 2013;2(3):95–100. DOI: 10.4103/2278-0203.119681.
  11. Golwalkar SA, Msitry KA. An evaluation of dental crowding in relation to the mesiodistal crown widths and arch dimensions. J Indian Orthod Soc 2009;43(2):22. DOI: 10.1177/0974909820080203.
  12. Steigman S, Gershkovitz E, Harari D. Characteristics and stability of spaced dentition. Angle Orthod 1985;55(4):321–328. DOI: 10.1043/0003-3219(1985)055<0321:CASOSD>2.0.CO;2.
  13. McKeever A. Genetics versus environment in the aetiology of malocclusion. Br Dent J 2012;212(11):527–528. DOI: 10.1038/sj.bdj.2012.465.
  14. Dempsey Pa, Townsend G. Genetic and environmental contributions to variation in human tooth size. Heredity 2001;86(6):685–693. DOI: 10.1046/j.1365-2540.2001.00878.x.
  15. Proffit WR, Fields HW, Sarver DM. Contemporary orthodontics. Elsevier Health Sciences; 2014.
  16. Arif AN, Rasheed TA, Ali A. Dental crowding and its relationship to tooth size and arch dimensions. J Nat Sci Res 2014;4(10):133–136.
  17. Koo TK, Li MY. A guideline of selecting and reporting intraclass correlation coefficients for reliability research. J Chiropr Med 2016;15(2):155–163. DOI: 10.1016/j.jcm.2016.02.012.
  18. Bishara SE, Ortho D, Jakobsen JR, et al. Arch width changes from 6 weeks to 45 years of age. Am J Orthod Dentofac Orthop 1997;111(4):401–409. DOI: 10.1016/s0889-5406(97)80022-4.
  19. Fattahi HR, Pakshir HR, Hedayati Z. Comparison of tooth size discrepancies among different malocclusion groups. Eur J Orthod 2006;28(5):491–495. DOI: 10.1093/ejo/cjl012.
  20. Garib DG, Peck S. Extreme variations in the shape of mandibular premolars. Am J Orthod Dentofac Orthop 2006;130(3):317–323. DOI: 10.1016/j.ajodo.2005.01.022.
PDF Share
PDF Share

© Jaypee Brothers Medical Publishers (P) LTD.