Comparison of the arch perimeter discrepancy in Javanese class I malocclusion: modified kesling vs. lundström analysis method at Dental Hospital Universitas Airlangga 2018-2024
Ervina Restiwulan Winoto(1*), Alida Alida(2), Prasherly Anura Dinda(3)
(1) Department of Orthodontic, Faculty of Dental Medicine, Airlangga University, Surabaya, East Java, Indonesia
(2) Faculty of Dental Medicine, Airlangga University, Surabaya, East Java, Indonesia
(3) Faculty of Dental Medicine, Airlangga University, Surabaya, East Java, Indonesia
(*) Corresponding Author
Abstract
Creating orthodontic treatment more efficiently in Indonesia requires the population's facial and jaw characteristics recognition as influenced by ethnic and gender characteristics. Myriad study model analysis methods are needed to evaluate a malocclusion’s treatment plan, such as modified kesling and lundström analysis which calculate Jaw Arch Perimeter (JAP) and Dental Arch Perimeter (DAP). Prior studies of different ethnicities and genders across global populations have demonstrated variations in results. Therefore, it is necessary to compare those two methods to ascertain the final result of arch perimeter discrepancy in Javanese class I malocclusion. This study aims to prove the disparity in comparison of the arch perimeter discrepancy in Javanese class I malocclusion by modified kesling vs. lundström analysis method at Dental Hospital Universitas Airlangga 2018-2024. Applied inclusion criteria: Javanese ethnicity, age 18–25 years, permanent dentition (first molar to first molar), and no prior orthodontic treatment. It results in 53 samples. In lundström analysis, JAP is obtained by enumerating segmentally measuring pairs of teeth using a caliper. In the modified kesling, JAP is obtained by tracing the model on plastic mica. Then, continue by making pre-correction JAP with a marker and making post-correction JAP by measuring the ideal arch using a 0.1 mm copper wire. This study identifies a statistically significant final value difference between those two methods. This study identified statistically significant differences in arch perimeter values using modified kesling method and lundström analysis, whilst no significant differences in arch circumference by gender.
Keywords
Full Text:
ErvinaReferences
1. Indonesia BS. Mid Year Population - Statistical Data [Internet]. www.bps.go.id. Badan Pusat Statistik; 2024 [cited 2024 Jul 2]. Available from: https://www.bps.go.id/en/statistics-table/2/MTk3NSMy/mid-year-population--thousand-people-.html
2. Ratya Utari T, Kurnia Putri M. Orthodontic treatment needs in adolescents aged 13-15 years using orthodontic treatment needs indicators. Journal of Indonesian Dental Association. 2019; 2(2): 49-55. doi: 10.32793/jida.v2i2.402
3. Littlewood SJ, Mitchell L. An Introduction to Orthodontics. 5th ed. Oxford, United Kingdom: Oxford University Press; 2019.
4. Hashim H, Dweik Y, Al-Hussain H. An odontometric study of arch dimensions among Qatari population sample with different malocclusions. International Journal of Orthodontic Rehabilitation. 2018; 9(3): 93-100. doi: 10.4103/ijor.ijor_12_18
5. Lubis HF, Sinurat TB. Howe's dental cast analysis of students at the University of Sumatera Utara. Dental Journal. 2020; 53(3): 149-52. doi: 10.20473/j.djmkg.v53.i3.p149-152
6. Graber LW, Katherine, Huang GJ, Fleming P. Orthodontics. 7th ed. St. Louis, Misouri: Elsevier; 2022.
7. Agarwal N, Daigavane P, Kharbanda OP, Niranjane P, Nerurkar S, Shinde M, et al. Dewey's Modification for Angle's Class I Malocclusion: Revisited. Cureus. 2024; 16(2): e53490. doi: 10.7759/cureus.53490.
8. Rakosi T, Jonas I, Graber TM. Orthodontic diagnosis. Vol. 8. New York, N.Y.: Thieme Medical; 1993.
9. Sennimalai K, Selvaraj M. Orthodontic model analysis in the permanent dentition: A review of past, and current methods. IP Indian Journal of Orthodontics and Dentofacial Research. 2022; 8(4): 220-226. doi: 10.18231/j.ijodr.2022.038
10. Kandakkeel FN, Nagar P, Saseendran A, Syeda NK, Jenny A, Bajaj K. Assessment of dental crowding occurring in mixed dentition in maxillary and mandibular arches based on tooth size-arch length relationships and certain cephalometric parameters. Int J Clin Pediatr Dent. 2023; 16(2): 357-362. doi: 10.5005/jp-journals-10005-2574
11. Zylfiu-Latifi B. The assessment of tooth size and dental arch domensions among young Kosovar population. Urn.nsk.hr. Zagreb: University of Zagreb, School of Dental Medicine; 2024 [cited 2024 May 12]. Available from: https://urn.nsk.hr/urn:nbn:hr:127:865095
12. Harris EF, Smith RJ. A study of occlusion and arch widths in families. Am J Orthod. 1980; 78(2): 155-163. doi: 10.1016/0002-9416(80)90057-3
13. Devakrishnan D, Gnansambandam V, Kandasamy S, Sengottuvel N, Kumaragurubaran P, Rajasekaran M. Comparative study of tooth size and arch dimensions in class I crowded, proclined malocclusion and class I normal occlusion. J Pharm Bioallied Sci. 2021; 13(Suppl 1): S783-S787. doi: 10.4103/jpbs.JPBS_781_20
14. Militi A, Sicari F, Portelli M, Merlo EM, Terranova A, Frisone F, et al. Psychological and social effects of oral health and dental aesthetic in adolescence and early adulthood: an observational study. Int J Environ Res Public Health. 2021; 18(17): 9022. doi: 10.3390/ijerph18179022.
15. Triwardhani A, Alida A, Aulia VN. Bolton analysis on class I, II, and III malocclusion cases. Indonesian Journal of Dental Medicine. 2022; 5(1): 27-31. doi: 10.20473/ijdm.v5i1.2022.27-31.
Article Metrics
Refbacks
- There are currently no refbacks.
Copyright (c) 2025 Majalah Kedokteran Gigi Indonesia

This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike 4.0 International License.







