Korean J Orthod.  2012 Feb;42(1):47-54.

Comparison of arch form between ethnic Malays and Malaysian Aborigines in Peninsular Malaysia

• Othman SA
• Xinwei ES
• Lim SY
• Jamaludin
• Mohamed NH
• Yusof ZY
• Shoaib LA
• Nik Hussein NN

Abstract

OBJECTIVE
To determine and compare the frequency distribution of various arch shapes in ethnic Malays and Malaysian Aborigines in Peninsular Malaysia and to investigate the morphological differences of arch form between these two ethnic groups.
METHODS
We examined 120 ethnic Malay study models (60 maxillary, 60 mandibular) and 129 Malaysian Aboriginal study models (66 maxillary, 63 mandibular). We marked 18 buccal tips and incisor line angles on each model, and digitized them using 2-dimensional coordinate system. Dental arches were classified as square, ovoid, or tapered by printing the scanned images and superimposing Orthoform arch templates on them.
RESULTS
The most common maxillary arch shape in both ethnic groups was ovoid, as was the most common mandibular arch shape among ethnic Malay females. The rarest arch shape was square. Chi-square tests, indicated that only the distribution of the mandibular arch shape was significantly different between groups (p = 0.040). However, when compared using independent t-tests, there was no difference in the mean value of arch width between groups. Arch shape distribution was not different between genders of either ethnic group, except for the mandibular arch of ethnic Malays.
CONCLUSIONS
Ethnic Malays and Malaysian Aborigines have similar dental arch dimensions and shapes.

Keyword

Arch shape; Arch form; Arch dimension; Aborigines

MeSH Terms

Dental Arch
Ethnic Groups
Female
Humans
Incisor
Malaysia

Figure

• 

  Figure 1 Example of inter-canine and inter-molar width measurements used to compare arch dimensions of ethnic Malay and Orang Asli dental arch study models. Lines indicate path of linear measurement.

• 

  Figure 2 Arch form templates (OrthoForm™, 3M, Unitek, CA, USA) used to determine arch shape of ethnic Malay and Orang Asli dental arch study models.

• 

  Figure 3 Example of overlay method used to determine arch shape of ethnic Malay and Orang Asli dental arch study models.

Reference

1. McLaughlin RP, Bennett JC, Trevisi HJ. Systemized orthodontic treatment mechanics. 2001. New York: Mosby.

2. Rudge SJ. Dental arch analysis: arch form. A review of the literature. Eur J Orthod. 1981. 3:279–284.

3. Cassidy KM, Harris EF, Tolley EA, Keim RG. Genetic influence on dental arch form in orthodontic patients. Angle Orthod. 1998. 68:445–454.

4. Eguchi S, Townsend GC, Richards LC, Hughes T, Kasai K. Genetic contribution to dental arch size variation in Australian twins. Arch Oral Biol. 2004. 49:1015–1024.

5. 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.

6. Lavelle CL, Foster TD, Flinn RM. Dental arches in various ethnic groups. Angle Orthod. 1971. 41:293–299.

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

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. Ling JY, Wong RW. Dental arch widths of Southern Chinese. Angle Orthod. 2009. 79:54–63.

10. Lara-Carrillo E, González-Pérez JC, Kubodera-Ito T, Montiel-Bastida NM, Esquivel-Pereyra GI. Dental arch morphology of Mazahua and mestizo teenagers from central Mexico. Braz J Oral Sci. 2009. 8:92–96.

11. Jang K, Suk KE, Bayome M, Kim Y, Kim SH, Kook YA. Comparison of arch form between Koreans and Egyptians. Korean J Orthod. 2010. 40:334–341.

12. Nicholas C. The Orang Asli and The Contest for Resources: Indigenous Politics, Development and Identity in Peninsular Malaysia, Copenhagen. 2000. Subang Jaya: IWGIA and COAC.

13. Nicholas C, Baer A. Healthcare in Malaysia: The Dynamics of Provision, Financing and Access, Chee Heng Leng & Simon Barraclough. 2007. Singapore:

14. Khin MT, Than W, Abdullah N, Jayasinghe JAP, Chandima GL. The maxillary arch and its relationship to cephalometric landmarks of selected Malay ethnic group. Mal J Med Sci. 2005. 12:29–38.

15. Banabilh SM, Rajion ZA, Samsudin R, Singh GD. Dental arch shape and size in Malay schoolchildren with Class II malocclusion. Aust Orthod J. 2006. 22:99–103.

16. Hussein KW, Rajion ZA, Hassan R, Noor SN. Variations in tooth size and arch dimensions in Malay school children. Aust Orthod J. 2009. 25:163–168.

17. Barrett MJ, Brown T, Macdonald MR. Size of dental arches in a tribe of Central Australian aborigines. J Dent Res. 1965. 44:912–920.

18. Tibana RH, Palagi LM, Miguel JA. Changes in dental arch measurements of young adults with normal occlusion--a longitudinal study. Angle Orthod. 2004. 74:618–623.

19. Radzi Z, Yahya NA, Abu Kasim NH, Abu Osman NA, Yusof ZYM, Mohd FN, et al. Validation of cone beam CT scan for measurement of palatal depth in study casts. Int Fed Med Biol Eng (IFMBE) Proceeding. 2008. 21:758–761.

20. Jin Y, Yip HK. Supragingival calculus: formation and control. Crit Rev Oral Biol Med. 2002. 13:426–441.

21. Caglar E, Kargul B, Tanboga I, Lussi A. Dental erosion among children in an Istanbul public school. J Dent Child (Chic). 2005. 72:5–9.

22. Esclassan R, Grimoud AM, Ruas MP, Donat R, Sevin A, Astie F, et al. Dental caries, tooth wear and diet in an adult medieval (12th-14th century) population from mediterranean France. Arch Oral Biol. 2009. 54:287–297.

23. Nishijima K, Kuwahara S, Ohno T, Miyaishi O, Ito Y, Sumi Y, et al. Occlusal tooth wear in female F344/N rats with aging. Arch Oral Biol. 2007. 52:844–849.

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

25. Kook YA, Bayome M, Park SB, Cha BK, Lee YW, Beck SH. Evaluation of the anterior and posterior overjet for clinical arch form using 3-dimensional models. Angle Orthod. 2009. 79:495–501.

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

27. 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.

28. Anwar N, Fida M. Variability of arch forms in various vertical facial patterns. J Coll Physicians Surg Pak. 2010. 20:565–570.

29. Abdullah F. Inter-incisor, inter-canine, inter-molar width of adult Malays. 2007. Malaysia: University of Malaya;Dissertation for Degree of Master of Orthodontics.

30. Harris EF. A longitudinal study of arch size and form in untreated adults. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop. 1997. 111:419–427.

31. Nie Q, Lin J. A comparison of dental arch forms between Class II Division 1 and normal occlusion assessed by euclidean distance matrix analysis. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop. 2006. 129:528–535.