International Journal of Clinical Pediatric Dentistry

Register      Login

VOLUME 13 , ISSUE S1 ( Supplement, 2020 ) > List of Articles

Original Article

Comparing the Arch Forms between Mongoloid Race and Dravidian Race in 11–14-year-old Children

Shekhar Smitha, Priya Nagar, Raveendran Abinaya, Jagannathan Janani

Keywords : Arch forms, Dravidian groups, Ethnic groups, Intercanine width, Intermolar width, Mongoloid groups, Original research

Citation Information :

DOI: 10.5005/jp-journals-10005-1836

License: CC BY-NC 4.0

Published Online: 01-12-2020

Copyright Statement:  Copyright © 2020; Jaypee Brothers Medical Publishers (P) Ltd.


Aim and objective: To compare arch forms between Mongoloid race and Dravidian race in 11–14-year-old children. Materials and methods: Total 10 subjects from each study group were selected. Impression of both maxillary and mandibular arches were taken of all the subjects. Dental casts were poured. Intercanine measurement can be termed as the distance across two canine cusp tips, and intermolar measurement can be termed as the distance across two mesiobuccal cusp tips. This distance was recorded for maxillary and mandibular casts by making use of digital Vernier caliper. Data were tabulated. Statistical analysis: To note the statistical impact, a Chi-square test was applied. Results: The difference across the two groups was found to be statistically significantly noteworthy (independent t test p < 0.001). Conclusion: Group I (Mongoloid race) showed significantly larger intercanine to intermolar width compared to Dravidian race with wide flaring arches. Clinical significance: The size and forms of dental arches exhibit considerable variability within and among human groups. This research demonstrated that while considering Mongoloid patients, we must make use of prior formed orthodontic wires for ovoid shaped arches in a trivial fraction of patients.

PDF Share
  1. Cassidy KM, Harris EF, Tolley EA, et al. Genetic influence on dental arch form in orthodontic patients. Angle Orthod 1998;68(5):445–454.
  2. Lavelle CL, Foster TD, Flinn RM. Dental arches in various ethnic groups. Angle Orthod 1971;41(4):293–299.
  3. Celebi AA, Keklik H, Tan E, et al. Comparison of arch forms between Turkish and North American. Dental Press J Orthod 2016;21(2):51–58. DOI: 10.1590/2177-6709.21.2.051-058.oar.
  4. Nojima K, McLaughlin RP, Isshiki Y, et al. A comparative study of Caucasian and Japanese mandibular clinical arch forms. Angle Orthod 2001;71(3):195–200.
  5. Othman SA, Xinwei ES, Lim SY, et al. Comparison of arch form between ethnic Malays and Malaysian aborigines in peninsular Malaysia. Korean J Orthod 2012;42(1):47–54. DOI: 10.4041/kjod.2012.42.1.47.
  6. Lee KJ, Trang VT, Bayome M, et al. Comparison of mandibular arch forms of Korean and Vietnamese patients by using facial axis points on three-dimensional models. Korean J Orthod 2013;43(6):288–293. DOI: 10.4041/kjod.2013.43.6.288.
  7. Yaacob H, Nambiar P, Naidu MD. Racial characteristics of human teeth with special emphasis on the mongoloid dentition. Malays J Pathol 1996;18(1):1–7.
  8. Muhamad A-H, Nezar W, Azzaldeen A. The curve of dental arch in normal occlusion. Open Sci J Clin Med 2015;3(2):47–54.
  9. Hussein KW, Rajion ZA, Hassan R, et al. Variations in tooth size and arch dimensions in Malay school children. Aust Orthod J 2009;25(2):163–168.
  10. Louly F, Nouer PR, Janson G, et al. Dental arch dimensions in the mixed dentition: a study of Brazilian children from 9 to 12 years of age. J Appl Oral Sci 2011;19(2):169–174. DOI: 10.1590/S1678-77572011000200014.
PDF Share
PDF Share

© Jaypee Brothers Medical Publishers (P) LTD.