The Evaluation of the Relationship Between Intercondylar and Intercanine Distances, Maxillary Central Incisor Width, and Various Facial Forms: A Comparative Study

• Published in: Curēus (Palo Alto, CA) Vol. 15; no. 8; p. e43551
• Main Authors: Jassim, Amal, RP, Shanoj, K, Nandakumar, Radhakrishnan, Lakshmi, MC, Juraise, Mohamed Ali KP, Aysha
• Format: Journal Article
• Language: English
• Published: Palo Alto Cureus Inc 15.08.2023; Cureus
• Subjects: Anatomy & physiology; Dentistry; Face; Jaw; Teeth; Variance analysis
• ISSN: 2168-8184; 2168-8184
• DOI: 10.7759/cureus.43551

BackgroundThe intercondylar distance is a predictable and invariable parameter, which is not influenced by the soft tissue limitations and resorption unlike comparable anatomical markers. Limited studies are available on the use of intercondylar distance for the selection of teeth arrangement and its relationship with varying face forms.AimThe study aimed to evaluate the relationship between intercondylar distance and maxillary intercanine tip distances and central incisor width in square, tapering, and ovoid facial forms.Materials and methodsThe comparative cross-sectional study was performed between January 2021 and August 2022. A convenience sampling strategy was used to include subjects between the ages of 18 and 40 years who had all of their natural teeth. The facial forms of the subjects were detected using a face form indicator and grouped into ovoid (group A), tapering (group B), and square (group C) forms comprising 63 subjects in each group. The intercondylar and intercanine distances and maxillary central incisor width were measured using a digital caliper. The Statistical Package for Social Sciences (SPSS) software (IBM SPSS Statistics, Armonk, NY) was employed to determine the statistical difference between and across the groups using one-way analysis of variance (ANOVA) and post hoc analysis, respectively. The correlation between the variables was determined by the Pearson correlation test.ResultsThe average age of the subjects was 24.55±3.47 years, and the age distribution was found to be statistically insignificant between the groups (p=0.63). The study consisted of 21% of males and 79% of females. The mean intercondylar distance was 125.2 mm in ovoid, 123.1 mm in tapering, and 125.9 mm in square face forms (p<0.01). The mean intercanine distance was 34.82 mm for ovoid, 37.11 mm for tapering, and 37.04 mm for square facial forms (p<0.01). Similarly, the mean central incisor width was 9, 7.84, and 8.51 mm for ovoid, tapering, and square facial forms, respectively (p<0.01). The ratio of intercondylar and intercanine distances in ovoid, tapering, and square faces was 1:3.59, 1:3.31, and 1:3.39, respectively. The ratio of intercondylar and central incisor width was 1:13.9, 1:15.7, and 1:14.7 for the groups A, B, and C, respectively. There was a statistically significant negative correlation between square and ovoid incisor width, square intercanine and ovoid incisor width, tapering incisor width and intercondylar distance, tapering intercanine and intercondylar distances, and tapering incisor width and square intercanine distance. The relationship between intercondylar and intercanine distances and the central incisor width was also revealed to be statistically highly significant (p<0.01).ConclusionWhen face form is taken into account, tapering face form shows more positive result for the relationship of intercondylar distance with intercanine distance and central incisor width. In patients with edentulous conditions, the intercondylar distance may offer useful measurements for tooth selection.