ORIGINAL ARTICLE

 

Prevalence of the different maxillary central incisor shapes in individuals with natural normal occlusion

 

 

Luiz Renato Paranhos^I; Renata Pilli Jóias^II; Leandro Gonçalves Velasco^III; Fausto Bérzin^IV; Eduardo Daruge Júnior^IV

^IDDS, MSc, PhD, Postgraduate Program in Dentistry, Orthodontics Area, Methodist University of São Paulo, Brazil
^IIDDS, MSc, Postgraduate Program in Dentistry, Orthodontics Area, Methodist University of São Paulo, Brazil
^IIIOral and Maxillofacial Surgery Specialist, Graduate student, Postgraduate Program in Dentistry, São Leopoldo Mandic School, Brazil
^IVDDS, MSc, PhD, Department of Buccodental Biology, Piracicaba Dental School, State University of Campinas, Brazil

Correspondence to

 

 

---

ABSTRACT

AIM: To investigate the prevalence of crown shape in maxillary central incisors of individuals with natural normal occlusion.
METHODS: The sample consisted of 51 Caucasian individuals with natural normal occlusion, no history of previous orthodontic treatment, and at least four of Andrews’ six keys to normal occlusion. The images of the maxillary incisors generated from model scans were evaluated by 12 orthodontists. The Kappa test was applied to verify inter-examiner agreement with regard to classification of the central incisor shape.
RESULTS: The results of the Kappa test showed significant agreement for tooth shape. The following prevalences were observed: ovoid (47.06%), square (31.37%) and triangular (21.57%).
CONCLUSIONS: The choice and use of one of these three shapes when selecting teeth for prosthetic rehabilitation (total and partial dentures) can contribute significantly to obtaining an improved facial harmony and balance. Ovoid-shaped teeth should be "stocked" in greater quantities than other tooth shapes.

Keywords: perception of shape, tooth, shape.

---

 

 

Full text available only in PDF format.

 

 

References

1. Auger TA, Turley PK. The female soft tissue profile as presented in fashion magazines during the 1900s: a photographic analysis. Int J Adult Orthodon Orthognath Surg. 1999; 14: 7-18.         [ Links ]

2. Basciftci FA, Uysal T, Buyukerkmen A, Demir A. The influence of extraction treatment on Holdaway soft-tissue measurements. Angle Orthod. 2004; 74: 167-73.         [ Links ]

3. Reis SAB, Abrão J, Capelozza Filho L, Claro CAA. Análise facial numérica do perfil de brasileiros padrão I. Rev Dent Press Ortodon Ortop Facial. 2006; 11: 24-34.         [ Links ]

4. Almeida AB, Mazzieiro ET. Considerações sobre a estética facial relevantes no diagnóstico e no planejamento ortodôntico. Rev Dent Press Ortodon Ortop Facial. 2003; 8: 101-7.         [ Links ]

5. Houston WJB. The analysis of errors in orthodontic measurements. Am J Orthod. 1983; 83: 382-90.         [ Links ]

6. Mondelli J. Estética e cosmética em clínica integrada restauradora. São Paulo: Quintessence; 2003. 546p.         [ Links ]

7. Conceição EN, Masotti AS. Princípios de estética aplicados à dentística. In: Conceição EM. Dentística, saúde e estética. 2. ed. Porto Alegre: Artmed; 2007. p.300-19.         [ Links ]

8. Aitchison J. Some racial contrasts in teeth and dental arches. Dent Mag Oral Top. 1965; 82: 201-5.         [ Links ]

9. Simões W, Villi ER, Silva M. Correção entre o comprimento total dos dentes incisivos centrais superiores permanentes com suas coroas e com a altura-largura da face, nos tipos faciais de leucodermas brasileiros. Rev Fac Odontol S Paulo. 1988; 2: 148-52.         [ Links ]

10. Souza AC. Prótese dentária: coroas e pontes. 10. ed. Rio de Janeiro: Científica; 1955. p.20-68.         [ Links ]

11. Williams JL. A new classification of human tooth forms, with special reference to a new system of artificial teeth. Dent Cosmos. 1914; 56: 627-8.         [ Links ]

12. Pagano JL, Carbó RA, Rey RA. Anatomía Dentaria. Buenos Aires: Mundi; 1965.         [ Links ]

13. Figún ME, Garino RR. Anatomia odontológica funcional e aplicada. São Paulo: Panamericana; 1994.         [ Links ]

14. Souza JCF, Tamaki T, Tamaki TS. Estudo comparativo da forma do contorno vestibular do incisivo central superior com a forma do rosto. RPG Rev Pós-Grad. 1997; 4: 114-20.         [ Links ]

15. Sellen PN, Jagger DC, Harrison A. Computer-generated study of the correlation between tooth, face, arch forms and palatal contour. J Prosthet Dent. 1998; 80: 163-8.         [ Links ]

16. Madeira MC. Anatomia da face: bases anátomo funcionais para a prática odontológica. São Paulo: Sarvier; 2001.         [ Links ]

17. Berksun S, Hasanreisoglu U, Gökdeniz B. Computer-based evaluation of gender identification and morphologic classification of tooth face and arch forms. J Prosthet Dent. 2002; 88: 578-84.         [ Links ]

18. Kina S, Bruguera A. Invisível – restaurações estéticas cerâmicas. Maringá: Dental Press; 2008.         [ Links ]

19. Burris BG, Harris EF. Maxillary arch size and shape in American blacks and whites. Angle Orthod. 2000; 70: 297-302.         [ Links ]

20. Andrews LF. The six keys to normal occlusion. Am J Orthod. 1972; 62: 296-309.         [ Links ]

21. Landis JR, Koch GG. The measurement of observer agreement for categorical data. Biometrics. 1977; 33: 159-74.         [ Links ]

22. Fleiss JL. Measuring nominal scale agreement among many raters. Psychol Bull. 1971; 76: 378-82.         [ Links ]

23. Rosner B. Fundamentals of biostatistics. Duxbury: Pacific Grove; 2000.         [ Links ]

24. Kusnoto B, Evans CA. Reliability of a 3D surface laser scanner for orthodontic applications. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop. 2002; 122: 342-8.         [ Links ]

25. Bell A, Ayoub AF, Siebert P. Assessment of the accuracy of a threedimensional imaging system for archiving dental study models. J Orthod. 2003; 30(3): 219-23.         [ Links ]

26. Quimby ML, Vig KWL, Rashid RG, Firestone AR. The accuracy and reliability of measurements made on computer-based digital models. Angle Orthod. 2004; 74: 298-303.         [ Links ]

27. Mayers M, Firestone A, Rashid R, Vig K. Comparison of peer assessment rating (PAR) index scores of plaster and computer-based digital models. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop. 2005; 128: 431-4.         [ Links ]

28. Stevens DR, Flores-Mir C, Nebbe B, Raboud DW, Heo G, Major PW. Validity, reliability, and reproducibility of plaster vs digital study models: Comparison of peer assessment rating and Bolton analysis and their constituent measurements. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop. 2006; 129: 794-803.         [ Links ]

29. Oliveira DD, Ruellas CO, Drummond MEL, Pantuzo MCG, Lanna AMQ. Confiabilidade do uso de modelos digitais tridimensionais como exame auxiliar ao diagnóstico ortodôntico: um estudo piloto. Rev Dent Press Ortodon Ortop Facial. 2007; 12: 84-93.         [ Links ]

30. Viek R, Duarte HEM, Abrahão TSK, Sannomiya EK. Avaliação qualitativa entre medidas transversais por meio de modelos 3D e de gesso com paquímetro [resumo FC-057]. Ortodontia Gaúcha. 2007; 11 Supl: 18.         [ Links ]

 

 

Correspondence to:
Luiz Renato Paranhos
Rua Padre Roque, 958 - Centro / Mogi Mirim
CEP 13800-033 - São Paulo - Brazil
E-mail: paranhos@ortodontista.com.br

Received for publication: November 30, 2009
Accepted: May 10, 2010