The journal of contemporary dental practice · 2020
Comparison of Mesiodistal Width of Maxillary Anteriors with Arch Form in Various Malocclusions: A Retrospective Study.
СтатьяНазвание и аннотация: Перевод пока не подготовлен
Обработка статьи · этапы, ошибки и управление
Загрузка состояния…
Ошибки и ограничения
История · было → стало
Состояние обновляется каждые 5 секунд, пока блок открыт. Процент показывается только там, где известен объём работы. Пауза останавливает продолжение этапа; текущий запрос к источнику может завершиться.
Sharma Sonika, Premsagar Shruti, Madhok Saksham, Kumar Sumit, Goyal Manish, Kumar Mukesh
Аннотация
AIM: This study was conducted for evaluating and comparing the mesiodistal width of upper anteriors in different malocclusions and its relation with various arch forms.
MATERIALS AND METHODS: In total, 60 subjects with different malocclusions were examined. Mesiodistal width was measured for the anterior teeth using digital vernier caliper. 3M Unitek arch form template and two-dimensional (2D) model were superimposed to find out primarily the relation of arch form in specific malocclusion to the sum the mesiodistal width of the maxillary of anterior teeth and secondarily the relation of sum of the mesiodistal width of the maxillary anterior tooth with different arch forms.
RESULTS: The ovoid arch form was common in class I malocclusion with mean mesiodistal width of 50.43 mm. The tapered arch form was the common type in both class II and class III malocclusion with mean mesiodistal width of 49.96 and 45.15 mm, respectively.
CONCLUSION: The mean of anterior mesiodistal width for Angle's class III individuals was 45.15 mm considerably less than that of class II subjects and class I subjects, which signifies that the tooth material was more in the anterior region of the subject of class I followed by class II and class III malocclusions.
CLINICAL SIGNIFICANCE: The performed study presents various maxillary dental arch forms observed in various malocclusions (Angle's class I, class II, and class III). The ovoid and tapered arch forms exhibited the common occurrence, while the square form was the rarest.
MATERIALS AND METHODS: In total, 60 subjects with different malocclusions were examined. Mesiodistal width was measured for the anterior teeth using digital vernier caliper. 3M Unitek arch form template and two-dimensional (2D) model were superimposed to find out primarily the relation of arch form in specific malocclusion to the sum the mesiodistal width of the maxillary of anterior teeth and secondarily the relation of sum of the mesiodistal width of the maxillary anterior tooth with different arch forms.
RESULTS: The ovoid arch form was common in class I malocclusion with mean mesiodistal width of 50.43 mm. The tapered arch form was the common type in both class II and class III malocclusion with mean mesiodistal width of 49.96 and 45.15 mm, respectively.
CONCLUSION: The mean of anterior mesiodistal width for Angle's class III individuals was 45.15 mm considerably less than that of class II subjects and class I subjects, which signifies that the tooth material was more in the anterior region of the subject of class I followed by class II and class III malocclusions.
CLINICAL SIGNIFICANCE: The performed study presents various maxillary dental arch forms observed in various malocclusions (Angle's class I, class II, and class III). The ovoid and tapered arch forms exhibited the common occurrence, while the square form was the rarest.