The Journal of Contemporary Dental Practice

Register      Login



Volume / Issue

Online First

Related articles

VOLUME 21 , ISSUE 4 ( April, 2020 ) > List of Articles


Comparison of Mesiodistal Width of Maxillary Anteriors with Arch Form in Various Malocclusions: A Retrospective Study

Sonika Sharma, Shruti Premsagar, Saksham Madhok, Sumit Kumar, Manish Goyal

Keywords : Arch form, Arch form template, Malocclusion, Maxillary anterior teeth, Mesiodistal width

Citation Information : Sharma S, Premsagar S, Madhok S, Kumar S, Goyal M. Comparison of Mesiodistal Width of Maxillary Anteriors with Arch Form in Various Malocclusions: A Retrospective Study. J Contemp Dent Pract 2020; 21 (4):377-382.

DOI: 10.5005/jp-journals-10024-2800

License: CC BY-NC 4.0

Published Online: 25-04-2012

Copyright Statement:  Copyright © 2020; The Author(s).


Aim: This study was conducted for evaluating and comparing the mesiodistal width of upper anteriors in different malocclusions and its relation with various arch forms. Materials and methods: In total, 60 subjects with different malocclusions were examined. Mesiodistal width was measured for the anterior teeth using digital vernier caliper. 3M Unitek arch form template and two-dimensional (2D) model were superimposed to find out primarily the relation of arch form in specific malocclusion to the sum the mesiodistal width of the maxillary of anterior teeth and secondarily the relation of sum of the mesiodistal width of the maxillary anterior tooth with different arch forms. Results: The ovoid arch form was common in class I malocclusion with mean mesiodistal width of 50.43 mm. The tapered arch form was the common type in both class II and class III malocclusion with mean mesiodistal width of 49.96 and 45.15 mm, respectively. Conclusion: The mean of anterior mesiodistal width for Angle’s class III individuals was 45.15 mm considerably less than that of class II subjects and class I subjects, which signifies that the tooth material was more in the anterior region of the subject of class I followed by class II and class III malocclusions. Clinical significance: The performed study presents various maxillary dental arch forms observed in various malocclusions (Angle’s class I, class II, and class III). The ovoid and tapered arch forms exhibited the common occurrence, while the square form was the rarest.

  1. Eskelsen E, Fernandes CB, Pelogia F, et al. Concurrence between the maxillary midline and bisector to the interpupillary line. J Esthet Restor Dent 2009;21(1):37–41. DOI: 10.1111/j.1708-8240.2008.00229.x.
  2. Berksun S, Hasanreisoglu U, Gokdeniz B. Computer based evaluation of gender identification and morphologic classification of tooth face and arch form. Prosthet Dent 2002;88(6):58–584.
  3. Al-Khateeb SN, Abu Alhaija ES. Tooth size discrepancies and arch parameters among different malocclusions in a Jordanian sample. Angle Orthod 2006;76(3):459–465.
  4. Lavelle CL, Flinn RM, Foster TD, et al. An analysis into age changes of the human dental arch by a multivariate technique. Am J Phys Anthropol 1970;33(3):403–411. DOI: 10.1002/ajpa.1330330314.
  5. Lavelle CL, Foster TD, Flinn RM. Dental arches in various ethnic groups. Angle Orthod 1971;41(4):293–299.
  6. Bjork A, Brown T, Skieller V. Comparison of craniofacial growth in Australian Aboriginal and Danes, illustrated by longitudinal cephalometric analysis. Eur J Orthod 1984;6(1):1–14. DOI: 10.1093/ejo/6.1.1-a.
  7. Brader AC. Dental arch form releated with intraoral force. Am J Orthod Dentofac Orthop 1972;61(6):541–561. DOI: 10.1016/0002-9416(72)90106-6.
  8. Paranhos LR, Andrews WA, Joias RP, et al. Dental arch morphology in normal occlusions. Braz J Oral Sci 2011;10(1):65–68.
  9. Olmez S, Dogan S. Comparison of the arch forms and dimensions in various malocclusions of the Turkish population. Open J Stomatol 2011;1:158–164. DOI: 10.4236/ojst.2011.14023.
  10. Murshid ZA. Patterns of dental arch form in the different classes of malocclusion. J Am Sci 2012;8(10):308–312.
  11. Noroozi H, Nik TH, Saeeda R. The dental arch form revisited. Angle Orthod 2001;71(5):386–389.
  12. Owais AI, Abu Alhaija ES, Oweis RR, et al. Maxillary and mandibular arch forms in the primary dentition stage. Oral Health Dent Manag 2014;13(2):330–335.
  13. Chuck GC. Ideal arch form. Angle Orthodontist 1934;4:312–327.
  14. Nie Q, Lin J. Comparison of intermaxillary tooth size discrepancies among different malocclusion groups. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop 1999;116(5):539–544. DOI: 10.1016/S0889-5406(99) 70186-1.
  15. Araujo E, Souki M. Bolton anterior tooth size discrepancies among different malocclusion groups. Angle Orthodontist 2003;73(3): 307–313.
  16. Fattahi HR. Comparison of tooth size discrepancies among different malocclusion groups. Eur J Orthod 2006;28(5):491–495. DOI: 10.1093/ejo/cjl012.
  17. Kook Y-A, Nojima K, Moon HB, et al. Comparison of arch forms between Korean and north American white populations. Am J Orthod Dentofac Orthop 2004;126(6):680–686. DOI: 10.1016/j. ajodo.2003.10.038.
PDF Share
PDF Share

© Jaypee Brothers Medical Publishers (P) LTD.