Korean J Orthod.  2013 Dec;43(6):288-293. 10.4041/kjod.2013.43.6.288.

Comparison of mandibular arch forms of Korean and Vietnamese patients by using facial axis points on three-dimensional models

• Lee KJ
• Trang VT
• Bayome M
• Park JH
• Kim Y
• Kook YA

• KMID: 2273422
• DOI: http://doi.org/10.4041/kjod.2013.43.6.288

Abstract

OBJECTIVE
This study was aimed at comparing the mandibular arch forms of Korean and Vietnamese patients by using facial axis (FA) points on three-dimensional (3D) models.
METHODS
Mandibular casts of 68 Korean (Class I malocclusion, 30; Class II malocclusion, 38) and 78 Vietnamese (Class I malocclusion, 41; Class II malocclusion, 37) patients were scanned in their occluded positions and grouped according to arch form (tapered, ovoid, and square). The FA point of each tooth was digitized on the 3D mandibular models. The measurements and frequency distributions of the arch forms were compared between the ethnic groups.
RESULTS
The Vietnamese patients had significantly greater intercanine depth and intercanine and intermolar width-to-depth ratios than the Korean patients (p < 0.05). The frequency distributions of the arch forms were also significantly different (p = 0.038), but no sexual dimorphism was found.
CONCLUSIONS
Vietnamese people tend to have deeper and wider arches than Korean people. The three arch forms are evenly distributed in Korean people, but Vietnamese people frequently have square arches. Clinicians should identify the correct arch form of an ethnic group before initiating orthodontic treatment.

Keyword

Arch form; Digital models; Ethnic norms; Vietnamese; Korean

MeSH Terms

Asian Continental Ancestry Group*
Axis, Cervical Vertebra*
Ethnic Groups
Humans
Malocclusion
Tooth

Figure

• 

  Figure 1 Facial axis (FA) points on a digitized mandibular model. The red dots represent the FA points of the (A) central incisor and (B) first molar.

• 

  Figure 2 The X-axis reorientation method. The X-axis was adjusted so that it was parallel to the mean inclinations (C) of line A (the line connecting the bilateral contact points of the first and second premolars) and line B (the line connecting the bilateral contact points of the second premolars and first molars).

• 

  Figure 3 Arch measurements. A, Intermolar width; B, intermolar depth; C, intercanine width; D, intercanine depth. The blue dots represent FA points and the red dot represents the origin.

• 

  Figure 4 Frequency distributions of the arch forms according to Angle's classification of malocclusion and ethnicity.

Reference

1. 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.

2. 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.

3. 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.

4. 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.

5. McLaughlin RP, Bennett JC. Arch form considerations for stability and esthetics. Rev Esp Ortod. 1999; 29:216–233.

6. Shapiro PA. Mandibular dental arch form and dimension. Treatment and postretention changes. Am J Orthod. 1974; 66:58–70.

7. 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.

8. 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.

9. 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.

10. 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.

11. Bayome M, Han SH, Choi JH, Kim SH, Baek SH, Kim DJ, et al. New clinical classification of dental arch form using facial axis points derived from three-dimensional models. Aust Orthod J. 2011; 27:117–124.

12. 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–e252.

13. Burris BG, Harris EF. Maxillary arch size and shape in American blacks and whites. Angle Orthod. 2000; 70:297–302.

14. Collins BP, Harris EF. Arch form in American blacks and whites with malocclusions. J Tenn Dent Assoc. 1998; 78:15–18.

15. Gafni Y, Tzur-Gadassi L, Nojima K, McLaughlin RP, Abed Y, Redlich M. Comparison of arch forms between Israeli and North American white populations. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop. 2011; 139:339–344.

16. Kasai K, Kanazawa E, Aboshi H, Richards LC, Matsuno M. Dental arch form in three Pacific populations: a comparison with Japanese and Australian aboriginal samples. J Nihon Univ Sch Dent. 1997; 39:196–201.

17. Koyoumdjisky-Kaye E, Zilberman Y, Zeevi Z. A comparative study of tooth and dental arch dimensions in Jewish children of different ethnic descent. I. Kurds and Yemenites. Am J Phys Anthropol. 1976; 44:437–443.

18. Othman SA, Xinwei ES, Lim SY, Jamaludin M, Mohamed NH, Yusof ZY, et al. Comparison of arch form between ethnic Malays and Malaysian Aborigines in Peninsular Malaysia. Korean J Orthod. 2012; 42:47–54.

19. Andrews L. Straight wire - the concept and appliance. San Diego: LA Wells;1989.

20. Country Comparison: Population [Internet]. Washington, D.C: Central Intelligence Agency;2013. cited Jul, 2013. Available from: https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/the-world-factbook/rankorder/2119rank.html?countryName=Vietnam&countryCode=vm&regionCode=eas&rank=14#vm.

21. More than 1.4 million foreign residents living in Korea [Internet]. Seoul, Korea: Ministry of Security and Public Administration;2012. cited Jul, 2013. Available from: http://www.mospa.go.kr/gpms/ns/mogaha/user/userlayout/bulletin/userBtView.action?userBtBean.bbsSeq=1022589&userBtBean.ctxCd=1012&userBtBean.ctxType=21010002&userBtBean.categoryCd.

22. Cordato MA. A simple mathematical study of anterior dental relations: Part I. Aust Orthod J. 1995; 13:249–252.

23. Cordato MA. A mathematical study of anterior dental relations: Part II, Incisor and canine overjet. Aust Orthod J. 1996; 14:143–149.

24. Cordato MA. A simple mathematical study of anterior dental relations. Part III: incisor and canine overbite. Aust Orthod J. 1998; 15:75–84.

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. Kim SC. A study on the configurations of Korean normal dental arches for preformed arch wire. Korean J Orthod. 1984; 14:93–101.

27. Lee YC, Park YC. A study on the dental arch by occlusogram in normal occlusion. Korean J Orthod. 1987; 17:279–287.

28. Yun YK, Kook YA, Kim SH, Mo SS, Cha KS, Kim JG, et al. Mandibular clinical arch forms in Koreans with normal occlusions. Korean J Orthod. 2004; 34:481–487.

29. 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.

30. Kim BI, Bayome M, Kim Y, Baek SH, Han SH, Kim SH, et al. Comparison of overjet among 3 arch types in normal occlusion. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop. 2011; 139:e253–e260.