Abstract
Background: Previous studies have described diverse dental arch shapes among different human groups, highlighting the relevance of considering ancestry for the diagnosis and planning of dental treatments. Aim: To compare the shape and size of dental arches between populations of different ancestries. Methodology: An observational analytical study using geometric morphometry tools in 272 individuals of Amerindian, Admixed, and European ancestries. Results: The analyses showed a clear distinction between Amerindians and Europeans in arch shape (correct identification by DFA >87%), while dental arches of Admixed origin did not show significant differences from Europeans. Regarding centroid size, the individuals of Amerindian ancestry presented the largest size (126.50 ± 18.36 mm.), followed by the mixed (117.32 ± 8.58 mm.) and the European (108.03 ± 7.10) ones. Conclusions: The Chilean admixed population presents a dental arch shape that does not differ significantly from the arch shape of Euro-descendants and a size similar to that of Amerindians.
References
Chuck G. Ideal Arch Form. Angle Orthod. 1934.
Izard G. New method for the determination of the normal arch by the funtion of the face. Int j orthod oral surg radiogr. 1927;13(7).
Rivera S, Triana F, Soto L, Bedoya A. Forma y tamaño de los arcos dentales en una población escolar de indígenas amazónicos. Colomb Med. 2008;39(1):51-6.
Agurto P, Sandoval P. Morfología del Arco Maxilar y Mandibular en Niños de Ascendencia Mapuche y no Mapuche. Int J Morphol. 2011;29:1104-8.
Ferro R, Pasini M, Fortini A, Arrighi A, Carli E, Giuca MR. Evaluation of maxillary and mandibular arch forms in an Italian adolescents sample with normocclusion. Eur J Paediatr Dent. 2017;18(3):193-8.
Park SJ, Leesungbok R, Song JW, Chang SH, Lee SW, Ahn SJ. Analysis of dimensions and shapes of maxillary and mandibular dental arch in Korean young adults. J Adv Prosthodont. 2017;9(5):321-7.
Burris BG, Harris EF. Maxillary arch size and shape in American blacks and whites. Angle Orthod. 2000;70(4):297-302.
Arai K, Will LA. Subjective classification and objective analysis of the mandibular dental-arch form of orthodontic patients. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop. 2011;139(4):e315-21.
Toro-Ibacache M, Manriquez-Soto G, Suazo-Galdames I. Morfometría Geométrica y el Estudio de las Formas Biológicas: De la Morfología Descriptiva a la Morfología Cuantitativa. Int J Morphol. 2010;28(4):977-90.
Benítez H, Püschel T. Modelando la Varianza de la Forma: Morfometría Geométrica Aplicaciones en Biología Evolutiva. Int J Morphol. 2014;32(3):998-1008.
Vidaurre Latorre F, Iriarte M, Manríquez G, Diaz Muñoz A. Patrón de variación de la forma del arco dentario mandibular en una muestra de la Región Metropolitana de Chile. Odontoestomatología. 2024;26.
Bryc K, Durand EY, Macpherson JM, Reich D, Mountain JL. The genetic ancestry of African Americans, Latinos, and European Americans across the United States. Am J Hum Genet. 2015;96(1):37-53.
Adams DC, Collyer ML. Comparing the strength of modular signal, and evaluating alternative modular hypotheses, using covariance ratio effect sizes with morphometric data. Evolution. 2019;73(12):2352-67.
Zelditch ML, Swiderski DL, Sheets HD. Geometric Morphometrics for Biologists: Elsevier; 2012.
Klingenberg C. MorphoJ: an integrated software package for geometric morphometrics. Int J Morphol. 2011;11:353-7.
Posit Software P. RStudio. 2024.
Manly B. Randomization, Bootstrap and Monte Carlo Methods in Biology. Third edition ed. London: Chapman & Hall; 2006. 455 p.
Hammer Ø, Harper D, Ryan P. PAST: Paleontological statistics software package for education and data analysis. Palaeontologia Electronica. 2001;4(1):9.
Fox JW, S. An R Companion to Applied Regression. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage; 2019.
Wickham H. ggplot2: Elegant Graphics for Data Analysis. New York: Springer-Verlag; 2016.
Dinno A. Dunn's Test of Multiple Comparisons Using Rank Sums 2024 [Available from: https://cran.r-project.org/web/packages/dunn.test/dunn.test.pdf.
Oda S, Arai K, Nakahara R. Commercially available archwire forms compared with normal dental arch forms in a Japanese population. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop. 2010;137(4):520-7.
Ahmed M, Shaikh A, Fida M. Evaluation of conformity of preformed orthodontic archwires and dental arch form. Dental Press J Orthod. 2019;24(1):44-52.
Lombardo L, Fattori L, Molinari C, Mirabella D, Siciliani G. Dental and alveolar arch forms in a Caucasian population compared with commercially available archwires. Int Orthod. 2013;11(4):389-421.
Mughal A, Jan A, Akhtar O, Ghaffar F, Shafique H, Shahid R. Comparison of commercially available preformed archwires with average natural arch forms. J Pak Med Assoc. 2021;71(11):2495-500.
Hanihara T, Ishida H. Metric dental variation of major human populations. Am J Phys Anthropol. 2005;128(2):287-98.
Pennisi G, Torrisi M, Cocimano G, Esposito M, Salerno M, Sessa F. Vitality markers in forensic investigations: a literature review. Forensic Sci Med Pathol. 2023;19(1):103-16.
Alshehhi A, Almarzooqi A, Alhammadi K, Werghi N, Tay GK, Alsafar H. Advancement in Human Face Prediction Using DNA. Genes (Basel). 2023;14(1).
Dunn RR, Spiros MC, Kamnikar KR, Plemons AM, Hefner JT. Ancestry estimation in forensic anthropology: A review. WIREs Forensic Science. 2020;2(4):e1369.
Wen YF, Wong HM, Pei T, McGrath C. Adolescent dental arch development among Southern Chinese in Hong Kong: a geometric morphometric approach. Sci Rep. 2019;9(1):18526.
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial 4.0 International License.
Copyright (c) 2025 Jorge Briceño Moya, Hinrich Huber, Alejandro Díaz , Germán Manríquez