The Journal of Contemporary Dental Practice

Register      Login



Volume / Issue

Online First

Related articles

VOLUME 22 , ISSUE 6 ( June, 2021 ) > List of Articles


Cone-beam Computed Tomography Analysis of the Relationship between the Curve of Spee and the Collum Angle of Mandibular Anterior Teeth

Nick Kelley, Sawsan Tabbaa, Grant C Vezina, Tarek El-Bialy

Keywords : Collum angle, Cone-beam computed tomography, Curve of Spee

Citation Information : Kelley N, Tabbaa S, Vezina GC, El-Bialy T. Cone-beam Computed Tomography Analysis of the Relationship between the Curve of Spee and the Collum Angle of Mandibular Anterior Teeth. J Contemp Dent Pract 2021; 22 (6):599-604.

DOI: 10.5005/jp-journals-10024-3102

License: CC BY-NC 4.0

Published Online: 09-08-2021

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


Aims and objectives: To evaluate the correlation between the curve of Spee (COS) of a patient and the Collum angle of mandibular anterior dentition using cone-beam computed tomography (CBCT). Materials and methods: This cross-sectional study was based on the analysis of 100 CBCTs of patients divided sagittally into two separate subjects. The Collum angles of the mandibular central incisor, mandibular lateral incisor, and the mandibular canine were measured along with the COS of that quadrant using Dolphin Imaging. A multivariate linear regression and Pearson correlation coefficients were conducted to measure the correlation between the COS and the Collum angle of mandibular anterior dentition. Results: The total number of participants in the cohort was 200 samples out of 100 patients as this was a split mouth study. The mean COS was 2.09 ± 1.239 mm. The mean Collum angle of the mandibular central incisor (L1) was found to be 6.50 ± 3.002 degrees. The mean Collum angle of the mandibular lateral incisor (L2) was 7.19 ± 2.554 degrees and the mean Collum angle of the mandibular canine (L3) was 7.03 ± 2.907 degrees. There was a statistically significant moderate correlation between L1, L2, and L3 and the COS with the Collum angle of the mandibular central incisor most highly correlated to the COS (0.42), followed by the mandibular lateral incisor (0.35) and then the mandibular canine (0.30). Conclusions: There is a statistically significant low to moderate correlation between the COS and the Collum angles of the mandibular anterior dentition.

PDF Share
  1. Bryant RM, Sadowsky PL, Hazelrig JB. Variability in three morphologic features of the permanent maxillary central incisor. Am J Orthod 1984; 86(1):25–32. DOI: 10.1016/0002-9416(84) 90273-2.
  2. Andrews LF. The six keys to normal occlusion. Am J Orthod 1972; 62(3):296–309. DOI: 10.1016/s0002-9416(72)90268-0.
  3. Delivanis HP, Kuftinec MM. Variation in morphology of the maxillary central incisors found in class II, division 2 malocclusions. Am J Orthod 1980; 78(4):438–443. DOI: 10.1016/0002-9416 (80)90024-x.
  4. Harris EF, Hassankiadeh S, Harris JT. Maxillary incisor crown-root relationships in different angle malocclusions. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop 1993;103(1):48–53. DOI: 10.1016/0889-5406(93)70104-V.
  5. Feres MFN, Rozolen BS, Alhadlaq A, et al. Comparative tomographic study of the maxillary central incisor Collum angle between Class I, Class II, division 1 and 2 patients. J Orthod Sci 2018;7:6. DOI: 10.4103/jos.JOS_84_17.
  6. Parker RJ, Harris EF. Directions of orthodontic tooth movements associated with external apical root resorption of the maxillary central incisor. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop 1998;114(6):677–683. DOI: 10.1016/s0889-5406(98)70200-8.
  7. Kaley J, Phillips C. Factors related to root resorption in edgewise practice. Angle Orthod1991;61(2):125–132. DOI: 10.1043/0003-3219(1991)061<0125:FRTRRI>2.0.CO;2.
  8. Marshall SD, Caspersen M, Hardinger RR, et al. Development of the curve of Spee. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop2008;134(3):344–352. DOI: 10.1016/j.ajodo.2006.10.037.
  9. Ma E. Differential CBCT analysis of Collum angles in maxillary and mandibular anterior teeth in patients with different malocclusions. Las Vegas: University of Nevada; 2016.
  10. Cangialosi TJ, Riolo ML, Owens SE Jr, et al. The ABO discrepancy index: a measure of case complexity. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop 2004;125(3):270–278. DOI: 10.1016/j.ajodo.2004.01.005.
  11. Rakosi T. An atlas and manual of cephalometric radiography. Philadelphia: Lea and Febiger; 1982.
  12. Bishara SE, Jakobsen JR, Treder JE, et al. Changes in the maxillary and mandibular tooth size-arch length relationship from early adolescence to early adulthood. A longitudinal study. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop 1989;95(1):46–59. DOI: 10.1016/0889-5406(89)90135-2.
  13. Ingervall B, Thuer U. No effect of lip bumper therapy on the pressure from the lower lip on the lower incisors. Eur J Orthod 1998;20(5):525–534. DOI: 10.1093/ejo/20.5.525.
  14. Backlund E. Tooth from and overbite. Trans Eur Orthod Soc 1960;36:97–103.
  15. Germane N, Bentley BE Jr, Isaacson RJ. Three biologic variables modifying faciolingual tooth angulation by straight-wire appliances. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop 1989;96(4):312–319. DOI: 10.1016/0889-5406(89)90350-8.
  16. Logan W. Deckbiss — a clinical evaluation. Trans Eur Orthod Soc 1959;35:313–317.
  17. Carlsson R, Ronnerman A. Crown-root angles of upper central incisors. Am J Orthod 1973;64(2):147–154. DOI: 10.1016/S0002-9416(73)90306-0.
  18. Heravi F, Salari S, Tanbakuchi B, et al. Effects of crown-root angle on stress distribution in the maxillary central incisors’ PDL during application of intrusive and retraction forces: a three-dimensional finite element analysis. Prog Orthod 2013;14:26. DOI: 10.1186/2196-1042-14-26.
  19. Tweed C. Clinical orthodontics. St. Louis: Mosby; 1966.
PDF Share

© Jaypee Brothers Medical Publishers (P) LTD.