Tags

Type your tag names separated by a space and hit enter

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 Apr; 129(4):528-35.AJ

Abstract

INTRODUCTION

The purpose of the study was to use euclidean distance matrix analysis to compare dental arch forms between subjects with Class II Division 1 malocclusions and normal occlusions.

METHODS

The sample consisted of 60 subjects with Class II Division 1 malocclusions and 60 subjects with normal occlusions, all between 13 and 17 years of age. Fourteen landmarks, corresponding to cusp tips and incisor edges, were identified on the dental casts with a 3-dimensional measuring machine. All possible linear distances between pairs of landmarks in an arch were computed, and arch-form differences between Class II Division 1 and normal-occlusion subjects were tested by euclidean distance matrix analysis.

RESULTS

In both sexes, the maxillary arches of the Class II Division 1 subjects were larger than the arches of the normal-occlusion subjects (1.8% and 2.7% larger for girls and boys, respectively), and arch shape was also significantly different (P < .001). The posterior teeth contributed to the shape difference between 2 groups more than the anterior teeth, moreover the main factor was narrow maxillary posterior arch width in the Class II Division 1 subjects. The mandibular arches of the Class II Division 1 subjects were also slightly larger, and arch shape was not significantly different regardless of sex.

CONCLUSIONS

Expanding the maxillary posterior arch width in Class II Division 1 subjects might be an important method to harmonize maxillary and mandibular arch forms.

Authors+Show Affiliations

Peking University, Beijing, China.No affiliation info available

Pub Type(s)

Journal Article

Language

eng

PubMed ID

16627179

Citation

Nie, Qiong, and Jiuxiang Lin. "A Comparison of Dental Arch Forms Between Class II Division 1 and Normal Occlusion Assessed By Euclidean Distance Matrix Analysis." American Journal of Orthodontics and Dentofacial Orthopedics : Official Publication of the American Association of Orthodontists, Its Constituent Societies, and the American Board of Orthodontics, vol. 129, no. 4, 2006, pp. 528-35.
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(4):528-35.
Nie, Q., & Lin, J. (2006). A comparison of dental arch forms between Class II Division 1 and normal occlusion assessed by euclidean distance matrix analysis. American Journal of Orthodontics and Dentofacial Orthopedics : Official Publication of the American Association of Orthodontists, Its Constituent Societies, and the American Board of Orthodontics, 129(4), 528-35.
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(4):528-35. PubMed PMID: 16627179.
* Article titles in AMA citation format should be in sentence-case
TY - JOUR T1 - A comparison of dental arch forms between Class II Division 1 and normal occlusion assessed by euclidean distance matrix analysis. AU - Nie,Qiong, AU - Lin,Jiuxiang, PY - 2004/10/21/received PY - 2005/01/13/revised PY - 2005/01/13/accepted PY - 2006/4/22/pubmed PY - 2006/5/4/medline PY - 2006/4/22/entrez SP - 528 EP - 35 JF - American journal of orthodontics and dentofacial orthopedics : official publication of the American Association of Orthodontists, its constituent societies, and the American Board of Orthodontics JO - Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop VL - 129 IS - 4 N2 - INTRODUCTION: The purpose of the study was to use euclidean distance matrix analysis to compare dental arch forms between subjects with Class II Division 1 malocclusions and normal occlusions. METHODS: The sample consisted of 60 subjects with Class II Division 1 malocclusions and 60 subjects with normal occlusions, all between 13 and 17 years of age. Fourteen landmarks, corresponding to cusp tips and incisor edges, were identified on the dental casts with a 3-dimensional measuring machine. All possible linear distances between pairs of landmarks in an arch were computed, and arch-form differences between Class II Division 1 and normal-occlusion subjects were tested by euclidean distance matrix analysis. RESULTS: In both sexes, the maxillary arches of the Class II Division 1 subjects were larger than the arches of the normal-occlusion subjects (1.8% and 2.7% larger for girls and boys, respectively), and arch shape was also significantly different (P < .001). The posterior teeth contributed to the shape difference between 2 groups more than the anterior teeth, moreover the main factor was narrow maxillary posterior arch width in the Class II Division 1 subjects. The mandibular arches of the Class II Division 1 subjects were also slightly larger, and arch shape was not significantly different regardless of sex. CONCLUSIONS: Expanding the maxillary posterior arch width in Class II Division 1 subjects might be an important method to harmonize maxillary and mandibular arch forms. SN - 1097-6752 UR - https://www.unboundmedicine.com/medline/citation/16627179/A_comparison_of_dental_arch_forms_between_Class_II_Division_1_and_normal_occlusion_assessed_by_euclidean_distance_matrix_analysis_ L2 - https://linkinghub.elsevier.com/retrieve/pii/S0889-5406(05)01279-5 DB - PRIME DP - Unbound Medicine ER -