# Fluctuating arch symmetry: a comparison of two methods of assessment - applicability and efficiency

## TL;DR

This study compares two methods for assessing dental arch symmetry in children and adults to determine their usefulness and efficiency in orthodontic treatment.

## Contribution

The study introduces and evaluates two distinct methods for assessing arch symmetry, highlighting their applicability in different treatment stages.

## Key findings

- Method 1 showed varying correlation levels in maxillary and mandibular arches across age groups.
- Method 2 found both arches symmetrical in all participants.
- Method 1 uniquely identified the side of asymmetry, making it more suitable for treatment monitoring.

## Abstract

Symmetry is balance, some correspondence in the size, form, and arrangements of parts on opposite sides of a plane, line, or point. The opposite of this concept is asymmetry, or imbalance.

This retrospective study compared two methods for assessing arch symmetry with linear measurements based on triangles, to determine their applicability and efficiency.

Two groups were enrolled: children (n=20) and adults (n=20), and the arch symmetry was assessed from linear measurements. Method 1: the incisor-canine (INC), canine-molar (CM), and incisor-molar (INM) distances (paired t-test and Pearson correlation). Method 2: a mathematical equation between the cusps measurements of the canines and the distobuccal of the first molars leading to result 1 (t-test for one sample and bootstrapping analysis). Dental casts were digitized and analyzed using a software program. The Bland-Altman test compared the methods (α=0.05).

The Bland-Altman test revealed concordance between the methods; however, separately the results were different: In method 1, the mandibular arch did not demonstrate correlation (children, INC r=0.33; CM r=0.45; INM r=0.51; adults, CM r=0.46; INM r=0.35), however, the maxilla revealed a strong correlation in children and a strong/moderate correlation in adults. In method 2, both arches were symmetrical (p>0.05).

Method 1 may be appropriate during orthodontic treatment, and method 2 may be indicated for final treatment. These methods are useful; however, only method 1 identified the side of asymmetry. The methods can contribute to future studies in syndromic and non-syndromic patients, before and after orthognathic surgeries and orthodontic treatment, comparing results.