Cross-sectional analysis compares dental arch dimensions with preformed archwires, suggesting tailored selections for patients.
BACKGROUND: Selecting an archwire that respects a patient's native arch form is central to stability and periodontal safety. This study quantified Yemeni adult dental arch dimensions and predominant arch forms and compared them with commonly used preformed nickel-titanium (NiTi) archwires using a bracket‑point-based reference graph. METHODS: In this cross‑sectional analysis, pretreatment casts from 222 subjects (Angle Class I and II; 16-28 years) were digitized. Clinical bracket points defined transverse widths (intercanine, Wc; intermolar, Wm) and depths (Dc, Dm). Arch form was categorized as tapered, ovoid, or square. Twenty‑seven 0.019 × 0.025‑inch preformed rectangular NiTi archwires were traced on a reference grid incorporating bracket‑base offsets, and widths at the canine (L3) and first‑molar (L6) levels were compared with sample means. Repeatability was assessed on a subsample. RESULTS: Ovoid was the predominant arch form. Males exhibited larger transverse dimensions than females. Across brands, most preformed NiTi archwires were wider than natural arches at the canine level. Mean (archwire-arch) differences were + 3.38 mm at maxillary canines and + 1.94 mm at maxillary first molars; in the mandible, + 4.05 mm at canines and + 1.53 mm at first molars. CONCLUSIONS: No single preformed archwire matched the Yemeni adult sample across arches and landmarks. Clinical selection should prioritize archwires that approximate the patient's pretreatment form, with individualized adjustments where indicated.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Al-Jobur et al. (2026) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: