Arch Width and Arch Perimeter among Class I Normal Occlusion, Class II Division 1 and Class II Division 2 Malocclusions Using 3D Digital Model

ORIGINAL ARTICLE
Nora Aliu, Albena Reshitaj, Almedin Berisha

 
For citation: Aliu N, Reshitaj A, Berisha A. Arch Width and Arch Perimeter among Class I Normal Occlusion, Class II Division 1 and Class II Division 2 Malocclusions Using 3D Digital Model. International Journal of Biomedicine. 2025;15(1):177-182. doi:10.21103/Article15(1)_OA21
 
Originally published March 5, 2025

Abstract: 

Objective: This study aimed to compare the arch width and perimeter of the maxillary and mandibular arch in individuals with Class I normal occlusion, Class II Division 1 malocclusion (Class II/1), and Class II Division 2 malocclusion (Class II/2).
Methods and Results: A total of 120 patients with a mean age of 14.5±1.1 years (range 13-16) were divided into three groups: Group 1 included 40 individuals with Class I normal occlusion, Group 2 included 40 patients with Class II/1, and Group 3 included 40 patients with Class II/2. The gender structure in all groups was the same. Measurements of intercanine width (ICW), interpremolar width (IPMW), intermolar width (IMW), and premolar width (PW) in the maxilla and mandible, and dental arch width (DAW) were performed using the Maestro 3D Studio program.
All mean maxillary and mandibular widths were higher in males than in females. This study showed that the maxillary ICW in Class II/1 was narrower than the ICW in Class I in males (31.6 mm vs. 33.9 mm), showing statistically significant differences P=0.030).  In females, the maxillary IPMW in Class II/1 and Claas II/2 was significantly narrower than in Class I. (37.6 mm and 37.5 mm vs. 39.2 mm) (P=0.001). The IPMW in Class II/1 and Class II/2 in males had smaller values (38.1mm and 38.8mm) than Class I occlusion (39.9 mm) but did not show statistically significant differences (P=0.085). The perimeter of the maxillary arch in Class II/1 was smaller than in Class I, but larger than in Class II/2 (71.7 mm, 75.0 mm, and 73.3 mm, respectively, in females (p=0.003) and 76.7 mm, 78.4 mm, and 75.6 mm, respectively, in males, while we did not obtain a statistically significant difference (P=0.395).
Intercanine, interpremolar, premolar, and intermolar widths were larger in the maxilla than in the mandible. In the mandible, we obtained a statistically significant difference only in the IPMW of the female gender classes (32,6 mm for Class 1, 32.4 mm for Class II/1 and 31.5 mm for Class II/2, P=0.031). According to gender, we obtained a statistically significant difference only in the mandible ICW in Class I occlusion (24.9 mm in females and 26.0 mm in males, P=0.018).
Conclusion: For each gender, the width and perimeter of the dental arch should be adjusted for each malocclusion.

Keywords: 
dental arch • arch perimeter • arch width • Angle's malocclusions
References: 
  1. Lee RT. Arch width and form: a review. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop. 1999 Mar;115(3):305-13. doi: 10.1016/S0889-5406(99)70334-3. PMID: 10066980.
  2. Hashim HA, Dweik YG, Al‑Hussain H. An odontometric study of arch dimensions among Qatari population sample with different malocclusions. Int J Orthod Rehabil 2018;9:93-100
  3. Ahmed N, Fida M. A comparison of arch dimensions among different malocclusion groups. J Pakistan Dent Assoc. 2010;19(2):94–8.
  4. Patel D, Mehta F, Patel N, Mehta N, Trivedi I, Mehta A. Evaluation of arch width among Class I normal occlusion, Class II Division 1, Class II Division 2, and Class III malocclusion in Indian population. Contemp Clin Dent. 2015 Sep;6(Suppl 1):S202-9. doi: 10.4103/0976-237X.166842. PMID: 26604575; PMCID: PMC4632224.
  5. Staley RN, Reske NT. Essentials of orthodontics diagnosis and treatment. Oxford: Wiley-Blackwell Ltd.; 2011.
  6. Mushtaq N, Tajik I, Basheer S, Shakeel S. Intercanine and intermolar width in Angle Class I, II, and III malocclusions. Pakistan Oral & Dent J 2014:34(1):83-7
  7. Yang D, Liang S, Zhang K, Gao W, Bai Y. Evaluation of Growth and Development of Late Mixed Dentition Upper Dental Arch with Normal Occlusion Using 3-Dimensional Digital Models. J Healthc Eng. 2019 Nov 14;2019:4191848. doi: 10.1155/2019/4191848. PMID: 31814950; PMCID: PMC6878797.
  8. Bishara SE, Bayati P, Jakobsen JR. Longitudinal comparisons of dental arch changes in normal and untreated Class II, Division 1 subjects and their clinical implications. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop. 1996 Nov;110(5):483-9. doi: 10.1016/s0889-5406(96)70054-9. PMID: 8922506.
  9. Putri B, Malik I, Zenab NRY. Comparison of intercanine width in between Angle class II division 1 and division 2 malocclusions. Padjadjaran Journal of Dentistry 2016;28(2):81-84.
  10. Motoyoshi M, Hirabayashi M, Shimazaki T, Namura S. An experimental study on mandibular expansion: increases in arch width and perimeter. Eur J Orthod. 2002 Apr;24(2):125-30. doi: 10.1093/ejo/24.2.125. PMID: 12001548.
  11. Paulino V, Paredes V, Gandia JL, Cibrian R. Prediction of arch length based on intercanine width. Eur J Orthod. 2008 Jun;30(3):295-8. doi: 10.1093/ejo/cjm115. Epub 2008 Feb 8. PMID: 18263887.
  12. Wiranto MG, Engelbrecht WP, Tutein Nolthenius HE, van der Meer WJ, Ren Y. Validity, reliability, and reproducibility of linear measurements on digital models obtained from intraoral and cone-beam computed tomography scans of alginate impressions. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop. 2013 Jan;143(1):140-7. doi: 10.1016/j.ajodo.2012.06.018. PMID: 23273370.
  13. Reis INR, Damin GB, Pereira CR, Ichigi MA, Sant'Anna LOC, Spin-Neto R, Romito GA. Digital Planning to Enhance Diagnosis and Precision in Correcting Excessive Gingival Display in the Presence of Asymmetrical Maxillary Position: A Case Report. Eur J Dent. 2024 Jul;18(3):950-956. doi: 10.1055/s-0044-1785535. Epub 2024 May 14. PMID: 38744324; PMCID: PMC11290926.
  14. Proft WR, Fields HW Jr, Larson BE, Sarver DM (2019) Contemporary orthodontics, 6th edn. Elsevier, Philadelphia
  15. Chung DD, Wolfgramm R. Maxillary arch perimeter prediction using Ramanujan's equation for the ellipse. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop. 2015 Feb;147(2):235-41. doi: 10.1016/j.ajodo.2014.10.022. PMID: 25636558.
  16. Flügge TV, Schlager S, Nelson K, Nahles S, Metzger MC. Precision of intraoral digital dental impressions with iTero and extraoral digitization with the iTero and a model scanner. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop. 2013 Sep;144(3):471-8. doi: 10.1016/j.ajodo.2013.04.017. PMID: 23992820.
  17. Bukhari SA, Reddy KA, Reddy MR, Shah SH. Evaluation of virtual models (3Shape Ortho System) in assessing accuracy and duration of model analyses based on the severity of crowding. Saudi J Dent Res. 2017 Jan 1; 8 (1- 2):11-8.
  18. Marwa Sameh Shamaa. COMPARISON BETWEEN CLASS II DIVISION 1 AND 2 MALOCCLUSIONS. Egyptian Dental Journal.2019;65:899:908.
  19. Staley RN, Stuntz WR, Peterson LC. A comparison of arch widths in adults with normal occlusion and adults with class II, Division 1 malocclusion. Am J Orthod. 1985 Aug;88(2):163-9. doi: 10.1016/0002-9416(85)90241-6. PMID: 3861102.
  20. Buschang PH, Stroud J, Alexander RG. Differences in dental arch morphology among adult females with untreated Class I and Class II malocclusion. Eur J Orthod. 1994 Feb;16(1):47-52. doi: 10.1093/ejo/16.1.47. PMID: 8181550.
  21. Lux CJ, Conradt C, Burden D, Komposch G. Dental arch widths and mandibular-maxillary base widths in Class II malocclusions between early mixed and permanent dentitions. Angle Orthod. 2003 Dec;73(6):674-85. doi: 10.1043/0003-3219(2003)073<0674:DAWAMB>2.0.CO;2. PMID: 14719732.
  22. Uysal T, Memili B, Usumez S, Sari Z. Dental and alveolar arch widths in normal occlusion, class II division 1 and class II division 2. Angle Orthod. 2005 Nov;75(6):941-7. doi: 10.1043/0003-3219(2005)75[941:DAAAWI]2.0.CO;2. PMID: 16448235.
  23. Huth J, Staley RN, Jacobs R, Bigelow H, Jakobsen J. Arch widths in class II-2 adults compared to adults with class II-1 and normal occlusion. Angle Orthod. 2007 Sep;77(5):837-44. doi: 10.2319/062305-209. PMID: 17685768.
  24. Sayin MO, Turkkahraman H. Comparison of dental arch and alveolar widths of patients with Class II, division 1 malocclusion and subjects with Class I ideal occlusion. Angle Orthod. 2004 Jun;74(3):356-60. doi: 10.1043/0003-3219(2004)074<0356:CODAAA>2.0.CO;2. PMID: 15264647.
  25. Shahid F, Alam MK, Khamis MF. Maxillary and mandibular anterior crown width/height ratio and its relation to various arch perimeters, arch length, and arch width groups. Eur J Dent. 2015 Oct-Dec;9(4):490-499. doi: 10.4103/1305-7456.172620. PMID: 26929686; PMCID: PMC4745229.
  26. Moshabab Asiry, Haider Hashim Arch widths in Saudi subjects with Class II, Division 1 malocclusion JIOH. April 2012; 4(1).
  27. Park SH, Byun SH, Oh SH, Lee HL, Kim JW, Yang BE, Park IY. Evaluation of the Reliability, Reproducibility and Validity of Digital Orthodontic Measurements Based on Various Digital Models among Young Patients. J Clin Med. 2020 Aug 24;9(9):2728. doi: 10.3390/jcm9092728. PMID: 32846984; PMCID: PMC7564383.
  28. Shafique HZ, Zaheer R, Jan A, Fazal A. Comparison of Tooth Widths, Arch Widths and Arch Lengths in Class-I Normal Dentition to Class-I and II Crowded Dentitions. Pak J Med Sci. 2021 Mar-Apr;37(2):345-350. doi: 10.12669/pjms.37.2.3240. PMID: 33679911; PMCID: PMC7931328.
  29. Al-Khateeb SN, Abu Alhaija ES. Tooth size discrepancies and arch parameters among different malocclusions in a Jordanian sample. Angle Orthod. 2006 May;76(3):459-65. doi: 10.1043/0003-3219(2006)076[0459:TSDAAP]2.0.CO;2. PMID: 16637727.
  30. Omnia A. Elhiny, Mohammed Abou Elyazied and Ghada A. Salem Prediction of arch perimeter based on arch width as a guide for diagnosis and treatment planning. Bull Natl Res Cent. 2021;45:141 doi: 10.1186/s42269-021-00602-1
  31. Petrović  V, Šlaj M, Buljan M, Morelato L, Zulijani A, Perić B.  Comparison of Dental Arch Width and Length on 3D Digital and Plaster Models. Appl Sci. 2024;14: 3572. doi:10.3390/ app14093572

Download Article
Received January 31, 2025.
Accepted March 3, 2025.
©2025 International Medical Research and Development Corporation.