ONLINE ONLY

Comparison of overjet among 3 arch types in

normal occlusion
Byung-In Kim,a Mohamed Bayome,b Yoonji Kim,c Seung-Hak Baek,d Seong Ho Han,e Seong-Hun Kim,f and
Yoon-Ah Kookg
Seoul, Korea

Introduction: The purposes of this study were to examine the amounts of overjet in the anterior and posterior
segments of 3 arch forms by using facial axis points on 3-dimensional virtual models and to verify the minimum
posterior extension required for classication of the arch form in normal occlusions. Methods: Facial axis points
were digitized on 97 virtual models with normal occlusion, classied into 20 tapered, 25 ovoid, and 52 square
arch forms. Intercanine and intermolar arch widths and depths were measured. The best-tting curves were
created, and overjet was measured at each facial axis point. Two-way analysis of variance (ANOVA) was
performed to assess the relationship between arch form and overjet in different areas. The minimum posterior
extension to determine arch type was analyzed with the chi-square test. Results: Subjects with a tapered
arch form had larger overjet compared with those with ovoid and square forms, except at the central incisor.
A signicant difference in overjet among different areas was found in subjects with a square arch form
(P \0.0001). No signicant difference (P 5 0.864) was found among the rst and second premolar and the first
molar groups for classifying arch-form types. Conclusions: A signicant difference was found in anterior and
posterior overjet according to arch types. The extension to the rst premolar was sufcient to classify arch
form type. It might be benecial to consider more coordinated preformed superelastic archwires according to
variations in overjet of different arch types. (Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop 2011;139:e253-e260)

he preservation of intercanine width is an indispensable part of treatment planning to reduce

the risk of postretention relapse.1-4 In addition,
improper occlusal relationships of teeth from
morphologic variations were reported to cause
recurrent crowding in the mandibular anterior
region.5,6 Deviation from the normal transverse
a

Private practice, Seoul, Korea.

Postgraduate student, Department of Orthodontics, College of Medicine, The
Catholic University of Korea, Seoul, Korea.
c
Assistant professor, Department of Orthodontics, Seoul St Mary's Hospital, The
Catholic University of Korea, Seoul, Korea.
d
Associate professor, Department of Orthodontics, School of Dentistry, Seoul
National University, Seoul, Korea.
e
Clinical assistant professor, Department of Orthodontics, St Vincent Hospital,
The Catholic University of Korea, Seoul, Korea.
f
Associate professor, Department of Orthodontics, Kyung Hee University, Seoul,
Korea.
g
Professor, Department of Orthodontics, Seoul St Mary's Hospital, The Catholic
University of Korea, Seoul, Korea.
The authors report no commercial, proprietary, or nancial interest in the products or companies described in this article.
Partly supported by the alumni fund of the Department of Dentistry and Graduate School of Clinical Dental Science, The Catholic University of Korea.
Reprint requests to: Yoon-Ah Kook, Department of Orthodontics, Seoul St Marys
Hospital, The Catholic University of Korea, 505 Banpo-Dong, Seocho-Gu, Seoul,
137-701, Korea; e-mail, kook190036@yahoo.com.
Submitted, August 2009; revised and accepted, December 2009.
0889-5406/$36.00
Copyright 2011 by the American Association of Orthodontists.
doi:10.1016/j.ajodo.2010.11.004
b

relationship might lead to root and alveolar bone

resorption, tipping of teeth, periodontal damage, and
esthetically compromised results.7-10 Consequently,
proper arch coordination is 1 key element to obtain
stable and functional treatment results.
Recently, new interactive treatment planning systems
such as Suresmile (OraMetrix, Richardson, Tex), Incognito (Lingualcare, 3M Unitek, Dallas, Tex), and Insignia
(Ormco, Orange, Calif) have offered better maxillary
and mandibular arch coordination by individualizing
archwires and brackets, resulting in shorter treatment
times and more desired results.11-13
Many authors have analyzed arch-form dimensions
and anterior overjet alone using 2-dimensional techniques involving photocopies.14-19 However, these
reports used various landmarks that could not
represent the correct clinical bracket position. With the
recent development of 3-dimensional (3D) virtual
technology, most arch-form parameters can now be
measured on the 3D virtual models as reliably and
accurately as on the plaster models.20,21
Kook et al22 compared overjet measured from the facial axis (FA) points to that measured from the bracket
slot points to provide a guideline for arch coordination.
Several authors have categorized arch forms into
tapered, ovoid, and square shapes to evaluate their
e253

Kim et al

e254

Fig 1. The FA points marked on the 3D virtual models: A, right buccal view; B, frontal view.

characteristics.23-25 However, they limited their

evaluations to the mandibular models only; therefore,
they could not analyze overjet. Interestingly, these
investigations included only up to the rst premolars
in their arch-form classication methods, even though
no study has yet conclusively determined whether it is
necessary to include the second premolars and the rst
molars when classifying arch-form types. Also, the relationship between overjet and arch-form type has not
been sufciently evaluated in the literature.
Therefore, the purposes of this study were (1) to
examine the amount of overjet in the anterior and posterior segments among 3 arch forms by using FA points
on 3D virtual models and (2) to verify the minimum
posterior extension required for classication of the
arch form in a sample with normal occlusion.
MATERIAL AND METHODS

The sample consisted of 97 young Korean adults with

normal occlusion (58 men, 39 women). The subjects
ages ranged from 20 to 25 years, with a mean of 23.3
years. The inclusion criteria were as follows: (1) Angle
Class I molar and canine relationships; (2) 0
\ANB
\4
; (3) normal overbite and overjet (.0 mm, \4
mm); (4) minimum arch-length discrepancy (\3 mm
of crowding, \1 mm of spacing); (5) at or slight curve
of Spee (\2 mm); (6) no deviation in the dental midline
or buccal crossbite; (6) permanent dentition with normal
tooth sizes and shapes, except for the third molars; (7) no
previous orthodontic treatment; and (8) no restorations
extending to contact areas, cusp tips, incisal edges, or
facial surfaces.
The amount of overjet was examined in the 3 arch
types. The mandibular and maxillary casts were placed
in the maximum intercuspation relationship and
scanned with a 3D laser scanner (KOD-300, Orapix,
Seoul, Korea) at 20-mm resolution. The FA points were
digitized on each tooth of the virtual models by using

March 2011  Vol 139  Issue 3

Table I. Denitions of arch-dimension variables

Variable
Intercanine
width (mm)
Intermolar
width (mm)
Intercanine
depth (mm)

Intermolar
depth (mm)

Canine
W/D ratio
Molar
W/D ratio

Denition
Distance between the FA points of the right and
left canines
Distance between the FA points of the right and
left rst molars
The shortest distance from a line connecting the
FA points of the right and left canines to the
midpoint between the FA points of the right and
left central incisors
The shortest distance from a line connecting the
FA points of the right and left rst molars to the
midpoint between the FA points of the 2 central
incisors
Ratio between intercanine width and depth
Ratio between intermolar width and depth

Rapidform 2006 software (INUS Technology, Seoul,

Korea) by 1 investigator (M.B.) with experience in the
3D technology (Fig 1).26
The transverse direction was set as the x-axis, the anteroposterior direction as the y-axis, and the line perpendicular to the x and y planes as the z-axis. The FA point
on the maxillary right second molar was set as the origin
of the x- and y-axes, and the z-axis values were nullied.
Four linear and 2 ratio variables were measured and
calculated for each arch form (Table I, Fig 2).
The amount of overjet at the anterior and posterior
segments in each arch form was measured as follows.
The x and y coordinates for the FA points of each case
were entered into mathematical software (MATLAB 7.5
[R2007b], MathWorks, Natick, Mass) to draw the
best-tting curve that represented the arch. Because
the polynomial function has been reported to be one
of the best mathematical representations of the dental
arch, several polynomial functions were applied, and

American Journal of Orthodontics and Dentofacial Orthopedics

Kim et al

e255

Fig 2. A and B, Arch-dimension variables measured from the FA points: 1, intercanine width; 2,
intermolar width; 3, intercanine depth; 4, intermolar depth.

the fourth degree (f [x] 5 ax4 1 bx3 1 cx2 1 dx 1 e)

was selected, since it most accurately represented the
arch form and produced the smoothest curves with no
wave-like properties.16,27,28 Overjet was measured as
the shortest distance from each FA point on the
mandibular arch to the maxillary one (Fig 3).
The measurements were made by 1 operator (M.B.) to
eliminate interoperator variability. Ten cases were randomly selected and reassessed 2 weeks later by the
same operator to evaluate intraoperator variability. The
intraclass correlation test showed high reliability between the 2 assessments (.0.8).
The best-tting curve of each mandibular cast was
matched to arch-form templates by superimposing clear
templates (OrthoForm, 3M Unitek, Monrovia, Calif) at
the center of the curvature of the best-tting curve.
The sample was classied into 3 groups of 20 tapered,
25 ovoid, and 52 square arch forms.
Thirty randomly selected best-tting curves were
rematched with the OrthoForm template by the same
operator. The difference between the 2 evaluations
was analyzed by the Wilcoxon signed rank test and
was negligible (P .0.05).
Since there was no signicant association between
sex and arch form (P 5 0.153) when assessed by the
chi-square test, male and female data were combined.
Analysis of variance (ANOVA) was applied to compare
the arch dimensions among the 3 arch-form types.
A t test was performed to evaluate the difference in
overjet between the right and left sides; since there
were no statistically signicant differences, the data
from both sides were combined. Two-way ANOVA was
performed to assess the effect of arch form and tooth
area on overjet. Since the results showed a signicant intersection, 1-way ANOVA tests were performed for each
variable independently, followed by the Scheffe posthoc test to evaluate the homogeneous subgroups.

Fig 3. Overjet variables were dened as the shortest perpendicular distance from the FA points of the mandibular
teeth to the maxillary arch.

The effect of including the rst and second premolars

and the rst molar on determining arch type was veried. Images of 2 tapered, 2 ovoid, and 2 square mandibular arch forms were randomly selected from our sample.
These images were copied and placed in 3 groups. The
arches in the rst group were cropped at the points
that represent the rst molar; in the second group, at
the second premolar; and in the third group, at the rst
premolar (Fig 4).
The images were shufed and presented to a panel of
30 orthodontists, who were asked to match the arch
forms to the OrthoForm templates using the same
matching method as in this study. Thus, each orthodontist matched 18 arch forms, and their matching pattern
was evaluated by assigning a score of 1 to the correct
match and a score of 0 to the incorrect match. Then
the scores were analyzed with chi-square tests to
compare the correctness among the 3 groups.

American Journal of Orthodontics and Dentofacial Orthopedics

March 2011  Vol 139  Issue 3

Kim et al

e256

Table II. Percentage of correct matches according to

arch types and extensions
Arch type
Extension
Tapered Ovoid Square Total
First premolar
95.0
91.7
86.7 91.1
93.3
93.3
83.3 90.0
Second premolar
First molar
98.3
90.0
80.0 89.4
Total
95.6
91.7
83.3 90.2
P value for
0.864
extension
comparison

P value for
arch-type
comparison

\0.001*

Chi-square test.
*P \0.001.

Fig 4. Dental arch form cropped at: A, the rst premolars;

B, the second premolars; and C, the rst molars for
verication of the minimum posterior extension.

RESULTS

In comparing the correctness of matching the arch

forms to the templates, the chi-square test showed no
signicant differences among the rst premolar, second
premolar, and rst molar groups (P 5 0.864). On the
other hand, it showed a signicant difference among
the arch types (P \0.001). The percentage of correct
matches was 90.2% (Table II). The most common mismatch in typing arch forms was failure to differentiate
between the square and ovoid types; 33 of 53 incorrect
matches were of this type.
Table III shows signicant differences among the 3
arch forms for all arch-dimension variables, except for
maxillary and mandibular intermolar depths. In the maxilla, the square arch form had a signicantly greater intercanine width (P 5 0.006) and a smaller intercanine
depth (P 5 0.024) than the tapered one. It also had a signicantly greater intermolar width than both the tapered
and ovoid arch forms (P \0.0001 and P 5 0.001, respectively). In the mandible, the tapered arch form had
a signicantly greater intercanine depth than the ovoid
one, which was in turn greater than that of the square
arch form. As in the maxilla, the mandibular square
arch form had a signicantly greater intercanine width
than the tapered one, and a signicantly greater intermolar width than both the tapered and ovoid arch forms
(P \0.0001 and P 5 0.003, respectively).
The analyses of overjet in each arch-form type demonstrated that tapered and ovoid arches had homogeneous anterior and posterior overjets from 2.24 to 2.59
mm and from 1.86 to 2.18 mm, respectively. However,
in the square arch form, there was a signicant difference in overjet among different areas (P \0.0001); the

March 2011  Vol 139  Issue 3

incisors showed a signicantly greater overjet than did

the posterior teeth, and the canines showed a signicantly smaller overjet (2.14 mm) than did the central
incisors (2.67 mm) (Table IV).
When we compared overjet among the 3 arch forms,
ANOVA showed that it was signicantly different in all
areas except at the lateral incisor. The multiple comparison tests showed that the tapered arch form had
a greater overjet than the ovoid one at the canine and
posterior areas, and greater than the square one at the
canine and premolar areas (Table IV).
DISCUSSION

The proper selection of the arch-form type during

treatment has become increasingly emphasized to
achieve better posttreatment stability as preformed
superelastic wires have gained popularity. A recent study
found that the maxillary arch form has become signicantly narrower after extraction treatment than before
and suggested that tapered archwires might be applied
after extraction of premolars in patients with Class I
crowding.29 Furthermore, tapered archwires were recommended for patients with narrow arch forms and
gingival recession, and square archwires for maintaining
the width after rapid maxillary expansion.30
The horizontal distance between the maxillary and
mandibular teeth has been calculated and predicted
through mathematic and geometric models.14,15,31 This
amount of overjet might be connected to labiolingual
or buccolingual tooth dimension, torque, and marginal
ridge relationships.32,33 However, most studies limited
their analyses to the anterior overjet and overlooked
the posterior segment and arch type.14,15,31,34
No study has yet attempted to evaluate anterior and
posterior overjets by arch-form type to accurately coordinate the maxillary and mandibular arches. Previous reports used incisal edges and cusp tips or indirect clinical
bracket points on 2-dimensional photocopies.14-19,23-25

American Journal of Orthodontics and Dentofacial Orthopedics

Kim et al

e257

Table III. Comparison of arch-dimension variables among arch-form types

Maxilla
Tapered

Mandible

Ovoid

Square

Tapered
Ovoid
Square
Multiple
Multiple
Mean SD Mean SD Mean SD P value comparison Mean SD Mean SD Mean SD P value comparison
37.21 1.44 37.89 1.41 38.68 1.90 0.004y
S .T
28.53 1.18 29.30 1.43 29.63 1.57 0.020*
S .T

Variable
Intercanine
width (mm)
Intermolar
56.59 2.18 57.49 2.29 59.85 2.75 \0.001z S .T and O 51.50 1.99 52.89 2.24 54.82 2.35 \0.001z
width (mm)
Intercanine
9.02 0.81 8.45 1.03 8.36 0.85 0.022*
T .S
5.94 0.83 5.09 0.68 4.46 0.71 \0.001z
depth (mm)
Intermolar
30.17 1.81 29.28 1.88 29.90 1.58 0.185
26.86 1.53 25.69 1.76 25.90 1.71 0.052
depth (mm)
Canine
4.15 0.30 4.53 0.46 4.66 0.41 \0.001z T \O and S 4.88 0.61 5.85 0.71 6.81 1.09 \0.001z
W/D ratio
S .T
1.92 0.13 2.07 0.15 2.12 0.13 \0.001z
Molar
1.88 0.13 1.97 0.13 2.01 0.11 0.001y
W/D ratio

S .T and O
T .O .S

S .O .T
T \O and S

ANOVA with Scheffe multiple comparison.

*P \0.05; yP \0.01; zP \0.001. O, Ovoid; S, square; T, tapered.

Table IV. Comparison of overjet among tapered, ovoid, and square arch-form types
Tapered
n 5 40
Overjet
Central incisor area
Lateral incisor area
Canine area
First premolar area
Second premolar area
First molar area
Second molar area
P value of area comparison

Mean
2.49
2.56
2.59
2.54
2.45
2.24
2.25
0.322

SD
1.02
1.08
0.90
0.63
0.60
0.46
0.56

Ovoid
n 5 50
Mean
2.09
2.18
2.13
2.06
1.99
1.87
1.86
0.095

SD
0.74
0.66
0.60
0.62
0.52
0.51
0.85

Square
n 5 106
Mean
2.67a
2.44a,b
2.14b,c
2.03c
2.04c
2.00c
1.97c
\0.0001z

SD
0.89
0.81
0.76
0.67
0.63
0.65
0.75

Total
Mean
2.49a
2.40a,b
2.23a,b,c
2.15b,c
2.11c
2.02c
2.01c
\0.0001z

SD
0.92
0.85
0.77
0.68
0.62
0.59
0.75

P value of
archtype
comparison
0.001y
0.083
0.005y
\0.001z
\0.001z
0.0099y
0.045*

Multiple comparison
among arch types
S .O
T .O and S
T .O and S
T .O and S
T .O
T .O

ANOVA with Scheffe multiple comparison.

*P \0.05; yP \0.01; zP \0.001. O, Ovoid; S, square; T, tapered. Means with the same letter are not signicantly different among tooth areas
according to the Scheffe grouping test.

However, they often lacked accuracy in identication of

arch forms and interarch relationships because they
failed to take advantage of FA points that are known to
show a direct representation of clinical archwire shape.
As expected, the tapered and square arch-form types
demonstrated many signicant differences in arch
dimensions. However, with the exception of the mandibular intercanine depth and width-depth ratio, the ovoid
arch form was not signicantly different from the
tapered and square arch forms. For example, its intercanine width was only 0.3 mm smaller than the square arch
form and 0.8 mm larger than the tapered. This might indicate a certain amount of overlap among the arch-form
types, especially related to the ovoid, suggesting the
need for a new classication method based on an FA
point approach.
Felton et al27 attempted to classify the arch types of
a sample of white subjects with normal occlusion

according to the commercially available archwires. However, the results were inconclusive, probably because of
the small sample size, demonstrating the difculty in
predicting ideal arch forms in a population. Later, Raberin et al35 developed a 5-group classication of arch
forms based on a sample with normal occlusion and
found that the narrow and pointed groups accounted
for approximately 43% of their sample. Unlike for white
subjects, the tapered arch-form type occurs less frequently in Asians, who have a higher proportion of the
square arch form. The tapered arch form was reported
to be 8.8% in a normal occlusion sample according to
Yun et al25 and 11.9% in a malocclusion sample according to Nojima et al.24 Therefore, it was difcult to acquire a sufcient number of subjects with tapered arch
forms to allow meaningful evaluation.
The tapered arch form in our study showed a signicantly greater overjet: approximately 0.5 mm more than

American Journal of Orthodontics and Dentofacial Orthopedics

March 2011  Vol 139  Issue 3

Kim et al

e258

Fig 5. Maxillary and mandibular coordinated arches of tapered, ovoid, and square arch forms.

the ovoid and square arch forms, except at the central incisor area. This was due to the difference between the
maxillary and mandibular intermolar widths, which
were 5.1 mm in the tapered and 4.6 mm in the ovoid
arch forms. The square arch form had the largest overjet
of 2.7 mm at this area; this might be explained because it
had the largest difference between maxillary and mandibular intercanine depths compared with the tapered
and ovoid arch forms.
Considerations of differences between anterior and
posterior overjet is essential for preadjusted bracket systems. Conventionally, it was proposed to be approximately 3 mm at all the areas.30 However, a recent
study concluded that it was 2.3 mm at the central incisor
with a tendency to decrease posteriorly to 2 mm at the
second molar.22 Our results showed that there was
a much greater difference between the anterior and posterior segments. This difference in ndings might be due
to the small sample size of the previous article that was
not classied by arch-form type. Therefore, tapered and
ovoid archwires might require a more homogenous overjet, and square archwires might need to be narrower in
the posterior segment. The tendency of overjet to decrease posteriorly might be because the sample was
not classied into different arch-form groups.
Our results regarding the transverse relationship seem
to have clinical value in modern orthodontics in designing
preformed superelastic archwires. This is because commercial archwires do not emulate arch forms, and some
modication is almost always necessary.27,36 Therefore,
it might be desirable to develop better coordinated
preformed superelastic archwires according to the
different arch types.
Figure 5 illustrates the coordinated arch forms for
each group. Overjet in the anterior area of the square
arch form is increased compared with the posterior
area but still larger than that of the anterior areas of
the tapered and ovoid arch forms. In contrast, tapered
and ovoid arch forms have homogenous anterior and

March 2011  Vol 139  Issue 3

Fig 6. Superimposition of the mandibular arches of the

tapered, ovoid, and square arch forms.

posterior overjets. In addition, the gure demonstrates

the similarity in intermolar width between the tapered
and ovoid arch forms.
Figure 6 shows that the ovoid arch form has an intercanine width close to that of the square form, and its intermolar width is similar to that of the tapered.
In earlier studies, only the 8 points that represent the
clinical bracket points from rst premolar to rst premolar on the arch-form curve were matched to arch-form
templates to classify the samples.23,24 However, this
was selected without scientic validation. Therefore,
this research included a verication test of the
minimum posterior extension required for accurately
typing the arch form into tapered, ovoid, and square.
The difference in the correctness of matching
between the 3 posterior extensions was statistically
insignicant, and there was a signicant difference in
correct identication among arch types (Table II). This
implies that the precision of the matching process was
not affected by whether the arch form is extended to
the rst premolar, the second premolar, or the rst molar. This is also supported by the absence of signicant
differences in intermolar widths between the ovoid and

American Journal of Orthodontics and Dentofacial Orthopedics

Kim et al

tapered arch forms. Moreover, the panel mismatched the

square and ovoid arch-form types 33 times of 53 incorrect matches. These observations indicated that the templates were too similar between the square and ovoid
types. This was our rst attempt to evaluate the minimum posterior extension to determine arch types. However, we used only 2 arch forms from each type and
limited them to the OrthoForm template. Therefore, further research with more arch-type images and other
templates might be worthwhile. Also, this study focused
on the dental arch forms in a sample with normal occlusion, but consideration of the dimensions of the basal
arch form might deserve some attention because conebeam computerized tomography is now readily available.
CONCLUSIONS

Application of FA points identied by 3D virtual models

is valuable for determining clinical bracket position.
The tapered arch form had a greater overjet compared with the ovoid and square ones, except at the incisors. A signicant difference in overjet among different
areas was found in the square arch form only.
Therefore, it might be benecial to consider more coordinated preformed superelastic archwires according to
the variations in overjet of the different arch types.
The ovoid arch-form dimensions were similar to
those of tapered and square arches.
The extension to the rst premolar was sufcient to
classify the arch-form type with the OrthoForm template.
A considerable overlap in identication of mandibular arch-form types by the template was found.
Therefore, a new arch-form classication system that
considers both form and size of the dental arch anteriorly and posteriorly, and with more distinctive borders
between groups, might be required.
We thank Yoon-Jin Lee, dental student in Wonkwang
University, Iksan, Korea, for her help preparing the sample, and Mr. Dong-Soo Cho, Mr.Seok-Jin Kang, and the
Orapix team for providing valuable technical advice.
REFERENCES
1. Johnson KC. Cases six years postretention. Angle Orthod 1977;47:
210-21.
2. Little RM, Wallen TR, Riedel RA. Stability and relapse of mandibular anterior alignment-rst premolar extraction cases
treated by traditional edgewise orthodontics. Am J Orthod
1981;80:349-65.
3. Shapiro PA. Mandibular dental arch form and dimension.
Treatment and postretention changes. Am J Orthod 1974;66:
58-70.
4. Little RM, Riedel RA, Stein A. Mandibular arch length increase during the mixed dentition: postretention evaluation of stability and
relapse. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop 1990;97:393-404.

e259

5. van der Linden FP. Sheldon Friel memorial lecture 2007: myths
and legends in orthodontics. Eur J Orthod 2008;30:449-68.
6. van der Linden FPGM. The future of orthodontics: overview and
discussion. In: Carels C, Willems G, editors. The future of orthodontics. Leuven, Belgium: Leuven University Press; 1998. p.
273-81.
7. Carmen M, Marcella P, Giuseppe C, Roberto A. Periodontal evaluation in patients undergoing maxillary expansion. J Craniofac Surg
2000;11:491-4.
8. Vanarsdall RL. Periodontal/orthodontic interrelationships. St
Louis: Mobsy; 1994.
9. Vanarsdall RL Jr. Transverse dimension and long-term stability.
Semin Orthod 1999;5:171-80.
10. Vanarsdall RL, White RP Jr. Three-dimensional analysis for skeletal
problems. Int J Adult Orthod Orthognath Surg 1994;9:159.
11. Moles R. The SureSmile system in orthodontic practice. J Clin
Orthod 2009;43:161-74.
12. Stamm T, Hohoff A, Ehmer U. A subjective comparison of two lingual bracket systems. Eur J Orthod 2005;27:420-6.
13. Wiechmann D, Gerss J, Stamm T, Hohoff A. Prediction of oral discomfort and dysfunction in lingual orthodontics: a preliminary report. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop 2008;133:359-64.
14. Cordato MA. A simple mathematical study of anterior dental relations: part I. Aust Orthod J 1995;13:249-52.
15. Cordato MA. A mathematical study of anterior dental relations:
part II, incisor and canine overjet. Aust Orthod J 1996;14:
143-9.
16. Ferrario VF, Sforza C, Miani A Jr, Tartaglia G. Mathematical denition of the shape of dental arches in human permanent healthy
dentitions. Eur J Orthod 1994;16:287-94.
17. Lee YC, Park YC. A study on the dental arch by occlusogram in normal occlusion. Korean J Orthod 1987;17:279-86.
18. 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;100:53-8.
19. 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;65:609-17.
20. Quimby ML, Vig KW, Rashid RG, Firestone AR. The accuracy and
reliability of measurements made on computer-based digital
models. Angle Orthod 2004;74:298-303.
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. Kook YA, Bayome M, Park SB, Cha BK, Lee YW, Beck SH. Overjet at
the anterior and posterior segments: three-dimensional analysis of
arch coordination. Angle Orthod 2009;79:495-501.
23. 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;126:680-6.
24. 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.
25. 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;36:481-7.
26. Andrews L. Straight wirethe concept and appliance. San Diego,
Calif: LA Wells; 1989.
27. 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;92:478-83.

American Journal of Orthodontics and Dentofacial Orthopedics

March 2011  Vol 139  Issue 3

Kim et al

e260

28. Pepe SH. Polynomial and catenary curve ts to human dental

arches. J Dent Res 1975;54:1124-32.
29. Miyake H, Ryu T, Himuro T. Effects on the dental arch form using
a preadjusted appliance with premolar extraction in Class I crowding. Angle Orthod 2008;78:1043-9.
30. McLaughlin RP, Bennett JC, Trevisi H. Systemized orthodontic
treatment mechanics. New York: Mosby; 2001.
31. Mutinelli S, Manfredi M, Cozzani M. A mathematic-geometric
model to calculate variation in mandibular arch form. Eur J Orthod
2000;22:113-25.
32. Sangcharearn Y, Ho C. Effect of incisor angulation on overjet and
overbite in Class II camouage treatment. A typodont study. Angle
Orthod 2007;77:1011-8.

March 2011  Vol 139  Issue 3

33. Lowe DW, Forbes DB, Hicken J, Skarin D. The effect of labiolingual
tooth dimension on proper overbite and overjet. Northwest Dent Res
1997;7:31-43.
34. Soliman NL, El-Batran MM, Abou-Zeid AW, Sarry El-Din AM,
Zaki ME. The relationship between overjet size and
dentoalveolar compensation. Indian J Dent Res 2009;20:
201-5.
35. 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.
36. Braun S, Hnat WP, Leschinsky R, Legan HL. An evaluation of the
shape of some popular nickel titanium alloy preformed arch wires.
Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop 1999;116:1-12.

American Journal of Orthodontics and Dentofacial Orthopedics