Comparison of maxillary anterior mathematical proportions among 3 dental arch forms

Abstract

Statement of problem: Race and sex differences in the mathematical proportions of maxillary anterior teeth have been evaluated. However, studies exploring the relationship between the mathematical proportion of maxillary anterior teeth and maxillary dental arch form are lacking.

Purpose: The purpose of this clinical study was to determine if a correlation exists between the mathematical proportions of maxillary anterior teeth and 3 dental arch forms.

Material and methods: Three hundred young participants were recruited according to predefined criteria, and images and maxillary casts were obtained. The perceived width and length of the maxillary anterior teeth were measured on the images by using a software program, and mathematical proportions, including width ratios and width-to-length ratios, were calculated for each. The casts were used to categorize each specimen into tapered, ovoid, or square groups by using a specific classification method, and the width ratios and width-to-height ratios of the 3 dental arch forms were compared. Statistical analysis was performed by using analysis of variance (ANOVA) or the Kruskal-Wallis H test to compare the mathematical proportions of maxillary anterior teeth among the 3 dental arch forms (α=.05). The intraclass correlation coefficient (ICC) was used to test the reliability of the investigators.

Results: Except for the width-to-length ratios of the central incisor, mathematical proportions were affected by the dental arch form. The perceived width ratios of the maxillary lateral incisor-to-central incisor gradually increased from the tapered arch to the ovoid arch and from the ovoid arch to the square arch, with mean ±standard deviation values of 0.71 ±0.04, 0.73 ±0.05, and 0.79 ±0.06, respectively. For the maxillary perceived width ratios of canine-to-lateral incisor, the ovoid arch had the maximum perceived width ratios (0.86 ±0.10), followed by the tapered (0.82 ±0.10) and square arches (0.77 ±0.11). The width-to-length ratios of the central incisor were not affected by the arch form (P=.075), and the width-to-length ratios of the lateral incisor increased as the arch form became flat, with respective values of 0.70 ±0.10, 0.74 ±0.10, and 0.76 ±0.10. For the width-to-length ratios of the canine, the ovoid arch had the maximum perceived width ratios (0.58 ±0.10), followed by the tapered (0.53 ±0.10) and square arches (0.52 ±0.10).

Conclusions: The mathematical proportions varied among the 3 dental arch forms, and the dental arch form should be considered during the prosthodontic design of maxillary anterior teeth.