Korean J Orthod.  2015 Mar;45(2):74-81. 10.4041/kjod.2015.45.2.74.

New classification of lingual arch form in normal occlusion using three dimensional virtual models

• Park KH
• Bayome M
• Park JH
• Lee JW
• Baek SH
• Kook YA

• KMID: 1787608
• DOI: http://doi.org/10.4041/kjod.2015.45.2.74

Abstract

OBJECTIVE
The purposes of this study were 1) to classify lingual dental arch form types based on the lingual bracket points and 2) to provide a new lingual arch form template based on this classification for clinical application through the analysis of three-dimensional virtual models of normal occlusion sample.
METHODS
Maxillary and mandibular casts of 115 young adults with normal occlusion were scanned in their occluded positions and lingual bracket points were digitized on the virtual models by using Rapidform 2006 software. Sixty-eight cases (dataset 1) were used in K-means cluster analysis to classify arch forms with intercanine, interpremolar and intermolar widths and width/depth ratios as determinants. The best-fit curves of the mean arch forms were generated. The remaining cases (dataset 2) were mapped into the obtained clusters and a multivariate test was performed to assess the differences between the clusters.
RESULTS
Four-cluster classification demonstrated maximum intercluster distance. Wide, narrow, tapering, and ovoid types were described according to the intercanine and intermolar widths and their best-fit curves were depicted. No significant differences in arch depths existed among the clusters. Strong to moderate correlations were found between maxillary and mandibular arch widths.
CONCLUSIONS
Lingual arch forms have been classified into 4 types based on their anterior and posterior dimensions. A template of the 4 arch forms has been depicted. Three-dimensional analysis of the lingual bracket points provides more accurate identification of arch form and, consequently, archwire selection.

Keyword

Lingual arch form; Lingual arch dimensions; Cluster analysis; Normal occlusion; Three-dimensional virtual models

MeSH Terms

Classification*
Cluster Analysis
Dental Arch
Humans
Young Adult

Figure

• 

  Figure 1 Lingual bracket points (red dots) on the three-dimensional virtual models. Arch dimensions were measured from these points. A, intercanine width; B, intercanine depth; C, interpremolar width; D, interpremolar depth; E, intermolar width; F, intermolar depth.

• 

  Figure 2 Superimposition of the best-fit curves of the mandibular arch clusters.

• 

  Figure 3 Template of mandibular lingual arch forms.

• 

  Figure 4 Template of maxillary lingual arch forms.

Reference

1. 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.

2. 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.

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

4. Nam HJ, Son WS, Park SB, Kim SS. Changes of mandibular dental arch during surgical-orthodontic treatment in skeletal class III malocclusion individuals. Korean J Orthod. 2008; 38:283–298.

5. Wheeler RC. A textbook of dental anatomy and physiology. Philadelphia: W. B. Saunders Company;1950. p. 196–215. p. 352–406.

6. Lee KJ, Trang VT, Bayome M, Park JH, Kim Y, Kook YA. Comparison of mandibular arch forms of Korean and Vietnamese patients by using facial axis points on three-dimensional models. Korean J Orthod. 2013; 43:288–293.

7. Suk KE, Park JH, Bayome M, Nam YO, Sameshima GT, Kook YA. Comparison between dental and basal arch forms in normal occlusion and Class III malocclusions utilizing cone-beam computed tomography. Korean J Orthod. 2013; 43:15–22.

8. AlHarbi S, Alkofide EA, AlMadi A. Mathematical analyses of dental arch curvature in normal occlusion. Angle Orthod. 2008; 78:281–287.

9. Battagel JM. Individualized catenary curves: their relationship to arch form and perimeter. Br J Orthod. 1996; 23:21–28.

10. Bonwill WG, Huwley C. Individual arch form. St. Louis: CV Mosby;1966. p. 84–86.

11. Braun S, Hnat WP, Fender DE, Legan HL. The form of the human dental arch. Angle Orthod. 1998; 68:29–36.

12. Currier JH. A computerized geometric analysis of human dental arch form. Am J Orthod. 1969; 56:164–179.

13. 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.

14. 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.

15. Pepe SH. Polynomial and catenary curve fits to human dental arches. J Dent Res. 1975; 54:1124–1132.

16. Sampson PD. Dental arch shape: a statistical analysis using conic sections. Am J Orthod. 1981; 79:535–548.

17. Raberin M, Laumon B, Martin JL, Brunner F. Dimensions and form of dental arches in subjects with normal occlusions. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop. 1993; 104:67–72.

18. Chae JH, Song JW, Cha JY, Choi JS, Park YC. Labial and buccal surface contours of Korean normal occlusion in a three-dimensional digital model. Korean J Orthod. 2008; 38:95–103.

19. Leifert MF, Leifert MM, Efstratiadis SS, Cangialosi TJ. Comparison of space analysis evaluations with digital models and plaster dental casts. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop. 2009; 136:16.e1–16.e4.

20. Zilberman O, Huggare JA, Parikakis KA. Evaluation of the validity of tooth size and arch width measurements using conventional and three-dimensional virtual orthodontic models. Angle Orthod. 2003; 73:301–306.

21. Lim MY, Lim SH. Comparison of model analysis measurements among plaster model, laser scan digital model, and cone beam CT image. Korean J Orthod. 2009; 39:6–17.

22. 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.

23. 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.

24. 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.

25. Kim YL, Sung JH. A study on morphologic characteristics of lingual surface of crown and lingual archform of Korean adult with normal occlusion. Korean J Orthod. 1995; 25:209–221.

26. Lombardo L, Saba L, Scuzzo G, Takemoto K, Oteo L, Palma JC, et al. A new concept of anatomic lingual arch form. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop. 2010; 138:260.e1–260.e13.

27. Stamm T, Hohoff A, Ehmer U. A subjective comparison of two lingual bracket systems. Eur J Orthod. 2005; 27:420–426.

28. Caniklioglu C, Oztürk Y. Patient discomfort: a comparison between lingual and labial fixed appliances. Angle Orthod. 2005; 75:86–91.

29. Triviño T, Siqueira DF, Scanavini MA. A new concept of mandibular dental arch forms with normal occlusion. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop. 2008; 133:10.e15–10.e22.

30. Noroozi H, Nik TH, Saeeda R. The dental arch form revisited. Angle Orthod. 2001; 71:386–389.