European Journal of Orthodontics 3 (1981) 279-284
00
© 1981 European Orthodontic Society
Dental arch analysis: arch form
A review of the literature
S. J. Rudge
Chester, England.
Summary. The literature of dental arch analysis is reviewed outlining the methods that have
been used to evaluate dental arch form. The theory, practical applications and problems of
these methods are described.
Many orthodontists have sought to find a
universal, ideal arch form and although most
studies have used similar material—a collec-
tion of untreated ideal> occlusions—there has
been very little agreement about the natural
shape of this ideal arch.
A review of the literature shows, how-
ever, that several assumptions are made:—
There must be an algebraic or geometric
formula which explains ideal arch form.
All ideal arches are the same shape and
differ only in size.
Every ideal arch is considered to be
symmetrical.
One of the earliest descriptions was
provided by Hawley (1905) based on the
earlier work of Bonwill (1885). Hawley
described the ideal arch as being constructed
upon an equilateral triangle with slight
modifications. The six anterior teeth were
thought to be arranged on the arc of a circle
whose radius was determined by the com-
bined width of the incisors and canines, with
the premolars and first permanent molars
arranged in a straight line and the second
and third molars turning in towards the mid-
line. The base of the equilateral triangle was
thought to represent the intercondylar width.
Arch forms provided by supply companies
are generally of the Bonwill-Hawley type.
Black (1894) described the upper teeth
0141-5387/81/00940279/S02.
as being arranged in a semi-ellipse, but Angle
Downloaded from by guest on January 14, 2015
(IS07) in a detailed discussion of the "line of
occlusion" maintained that this line repre-
sented a parabolic curve. He considered
Hawley's method of arch prediction to be
useful only as an approximate guide to
occlusion. The interpretation of Angle's use
of the line of occlusion, however, has become
confused; some orthodontists believe that
Angle referred to a line through the contact
points, while others think that the line passed
through the centres of the crowns or across
the middle of the buccal surfaces.
Williams (1917) described the anterior
teeth as lying on the arc of a circle with its
centre midway between the buccal grooves of
the first molars. In an investigation based on
the skulls of apes and humans, Hellman
(1919) was unable to find any relation between
the size of the teeth and the form of the dental
arches and he rejected the theories of arch
predetermination based on measurements of
specific teeth. Hellman criticised Bon will's
equilateral triangle and concluded that the
mathematical method of establishing dental
arch form was unsatisfactory. This view was
also taken by Stanton (1922) and Izard (1927)
who found a variance of arch form, repre-
sented by an ellipse in 75%, a parabola in
20% and a 'U' or square shape in 5 %.
Chuck (1934) suggested that the Bonwill-
280
Hawley method should be used to construct
symmetrical archwires which should then be
altered to fit the patient.
McConnail and Scher (1949) suggested
that the ideal curve would correspond to a
catenary curve—that is one formed when a
fine chain is suspended at both ends. Scott
(1957) and Musich and Ackerman (1973)
claimed that a catenary curve best repre-
sented a good average fit for arch forms and
that any variation from this form was a
consequence of alveolar-process growth
beyond the normal range. Musich and
Ackerman (1973) described a hanging chain
catenometer which permitted estimation of
the arch shape and length, the shape of the
curve being related to the length of the chain
and the vertical distance from the apex of the
curve to the horizontal between the attach-
ment points of the chain.
Wheeler (1950) maintained that bio-
logical forms could not be reproduced with
exactitude and Sicher (1952) supported this
view having found considerable variation in
the shape of the dental arch, the upper arch
being elliptical and the lower parabolic.
Baz (1958) determined normal arch size
by a "geometric construction" based on
measurements taken directly on the patient's
face. This was a development of Hawley's
method of arch predetermination.
Remsden (1964) studied various methods
of predetermination by comparing them with
arches of a sample of "normal" occlusions.
He found inaccuracies in all methods but
concluded that a parabola best represents
the anterior curvature of the dental arch,
although an arch that fitted a precise pattern
was to be regarded as an exception rather
than a rule.
Kato (1964) examined the relative
positions of teeth and average arch form by
establishing landmarks on the teeth on study
models. The landmarks were projected onto a
glass plane and plotted on a co-ordinate
system. Kato examined upper and lower
dental arches of both sexes and concluded
that there was no great disparity between the
arches. He also pointed out that description
of arch shape is largely subjective and that
IDEAL ARCHES
the same arch may be classified differently by
different workers.
More recent work has used computer
analysis of occlusion and Lu (1964) claimed
that the dental arch could be satisfactorily
described by a polynomial equation of the
4th degree. Currier (1969) tried to evaluate
the arch shape of satisfactory occlusions in a
selected sample by comparing them with
several geometric curves using mathematical
analyses and electronic data processing equip-
ment. He found that the buccal surfaces of
the maxillary arch conform more closely to
an ellipse than to a parabola but that neither
ellipse nor parabola exhibited a significant fit
to the lingual curves of the arches.
Sanin (1970) investigated the size and
shape of ideal arches by measuring two-
dimensional co-ordinates of the mesial and
distal points of teeth on 160 sets of study
models. He stated that the length and shape
Downloaded from by guest on January 14, 2015
of the curve could be determined by mathe-
matical functions such'as exponential, logar-
ithmic, elliptical, parabolic, hyperbolic or
polynomial. Computer analysis of point
co-ordinates obtained, showed that the fit of
a curve through the points was best described
through a mathematical function and that
the 4th degree polynomial was among the
easiest curves to fit while still adequately
describing the dental arch, thus confirming
the earlier views of Lu. Sanin also found that
by using two easily obtained linear measure-
ments in a simple formula, an estimate of
arch length could be calculated that was close
to the estimate obtained by fitting a 4th
degree polynominal curve.
The regression equation derived was:—
Arch length =Arch width x 0.504+
arch length x 1.525+14.856 mms.
where arch width was the distance between
the buccal cusps of the first deciduous molars
or premolars; arch length was the minimum
distance from a point midway between the
mesio-incisal angle of the central incisors and
a line connecting the distal landmarks of the
deciduous second molars or second
premolars.
The standard error of the estimate was
1.532 mms.
IDEAL ARCHES
Brader (1972) stated that dental arch
form represents an equilibrium between the
forces of the tongue and the circumoral
musculature, and thought that the geometry
of the arch was best approximated by a
closed curve with the curvilinear properties
inherent in the trifocal ellipse (generated
from 3 internal foci, and comprising a closed,
compound elliptical curve) with the teeth
occupying only a portion of the total curve
at its constricted end. As the tissue forces in
the resting state were considered to be the
primary determinants of arch form morph-
ology, the geometry of the curve was related
to the resting forces of the tongue so that
PR=C where P=pressure per unit area;
R=radius of curvature at a point along the
compound curve corresponding exactly with
the pressure site and C is a constant, exhibit-
ing a variation in magnitude between
individuals and variation in the same indi-
vidual at different physiological ages. The
arch form becomes stabilized and dental
equilibrium attained where C =T (the tension
of the circumoral tissues). That is to say,
there is an inverse relation between the
magnitude of the pressure and the radius of
curvature at each side.
Further work by Proffit (1978) has shown
that this is not the case in all patients and that
tongue morphology is important but that the
pressure exerted on the dentition varies.
Trifocal elliptical arch forms are used in
archwire fabrication (Brader, 1972; White,
1977) where the selection of the arch is based
on the arch width at the buccolingual
surfaces of the second premolars. Brader
arch forms are adapted to the labial surfaces
of the teeth and are of the same shape,
differing only in premolar arch width. The
maxillary arch selected is one size larger than
the mandibular arch so that arch co-ordina-
tion is greatly simplified but often leads to a
severe reduction in intercanine width (White,
1978).
A geometric approach to arch analysis is
provided by the arcogramme technique
(Herren et al., 1973). The arcogramme is an
open polygon drawn, using a binocular
microscope, to join landmarks of the mesial
281
and distal aspects of the crowns of the teeth
directly, on study models or on photographs.
The real contact points are connected by
straight lines to produce the open polygon.
Herren and his colleagues believe that the
production of a polygon by interpolation of
small straight lines gives a better expression of
arch shape as it follows the normal dental arch
and determines the length and shape of the den-
tal arch more accurately than does the ellipse.
Several authors have described the use of
an X-Y digitizer and computer programme
to analyse 1 : 1 photographs of study models
(Pepe, 1975; Marcotte, 1976; Burstone, 1979).
Pepe analysed a sample of only 7 models of
normal occlusion by digitization of a full-size
occlusal photograph to cartesian co-ordinates
which were then compared with mathe-
matically derived curves by computer. Of
all the curve generating equations studied in
Downloaded from by guest on January 14, 2015
this manner, the catenary was found to be
the least descriptive of the arch forms. In
more than 75% of the arches studied the
catenary curve was found to be inferior even
to the quadratic curve fit. However, the
polynomial curve was still not a good fit and
Pepe concluded that although this curve may
be used to describe arch form it is not
sufficiently accurate to use for archwire
construction.
Computer derived arch forms, now in
common use in practice, are produced from
measurements of intermolar width, inter-
canine width and arch depth from the labial
surface of the central incisor to the last
standing molar. The computer is pro-
grammed with the cartesian X-Y co-ordinates
necessary for a two-dimensional computer-
derived formula. From clinical data, Schulof
(1975) designed a biparameter catenary curve
from the lower arch to estimate individual
arch form, based on anterior tooth size, arch
width at the molars, denture position and
individual facial angle.
White (1978) attempted to analyse arch
shape in 24 ideal occlusions in terms of the
usual descriptions of arches—ellipse, para-
bola, trifocal ellipse and catenary. Overlays of
arch shapes were constructed from tracings
of the teeth and were then superimposed.
282
Subjective assessment of the close fit was
made. 8% of Bonwill-Hawley designs were
found to be good and 52% poor while 12.5 %
of Brader arch forms and 27% of catenary
curves were found to be good. The Rocky
Mountain Data System arch forms showed
none of poor fit, two of good fit and 95%
moderately good, but analysis was only made
of mandibular arches. Rocky Mountain have
now altered the computer programme to
recognise asymmetry and use different mathe-
matical curves for each side, which may well
be important because of the 48 arches tested
by White only 6% were found to be sym-
metrical. White concludes, as have others,
that no generalized universal arch form
seems to be applicable to the individual and
that algebraic and geometric formulae provide
symmetry which does not account for
individual variations.
Faber et al. (1978) pointed to the use of
computerized cephalometric study model
analysis, stating that predermination of arch
form permits the teeth to be arranged along
the curve, and arch length or available space
to be calculated. The drawback of this type
of simulation is that the mathematical curve
shape fitted to X-Y co-ordinates is usually
either parabolic or a trifocal ellipse and no
major study has yet shown that ideal arch
form actually approaches these mathe-
matically derived curves.
Burstone (1979) described a procedure
for case analysis by digitizing points on a 1 : 1
occlusal photograph of study models to give
measurements and tooth position on a visual
display unit. Ideal arch forms are then
constructed by the' computer, taking account
of the orthodontist's instructions on incisor
inclination, extractions etc., to give a para-
bolic curve which Burstone believes, by using
enough control points in arch form, can be
individualized for each patient. The computer
stores midline position and calculates space
inadequacy.. Different visual displays are
provided for differing treatment plans pro-
vided by the orthodontist and the computer
co-ordinates upper and lower arches with a
given overbite and overjet together with
estimates of anchorage loss.
IDEAL ARCHES
Discussion
The use of computers in diagnosis and
clinical management has increased con-
siderably in recent years and will doubtless
continue to do so with the progressive
reduction in the cost of computer equipment
but a review of the literature illustrates many
divergent views on arch shape and analysis.
Two opposing views have been stated on
the development of dental arch and jaw
shape; on one hand that the position is
solely determined by the pressure of lips and
tongue (Tomes, 1873) and on the other
that arch form is determined prior to
muscular development and is independent of
functional activity of the oral musculature
(Scott, 1967).
It is now generally believed, however,
that occlusion and arch shape are determined
by an interplay between genetic factors and
Downloaded from by guest on January 14, 2015
many varied external environmental factors.
Proffit (1978) and Moss (1980) thought
that the primary factors involved in the
determination of final tooth position are
resting pressures of the lips, cheeks and
tongue, and the force produced by metabolic
activity within the periodontal membrane.
These in turn are influenced by secondary
factors such as postural position of the head,
the jaw and the tongue, alterations in the
eruptive mechanism and the morphology of
the crowns of the teeth.
Clinicians should therefore be cautious
when treating individuals to a mathematically
derived ideal and when making archwires to
specific "ideal" shapes since studies have not
yet determined conclusively what that shape
might be or, indeed, whether the very many
varying soft tissue factors affecting tooth
position are such that any specific arch form
can be applied to the individual.
Address for correspondence
S. J. Rudge,
Orthodontic Department,
Chester Royal Infirmary,
St Martins Way,
Chester CHI 2AZ, England.
IDEAL ARCHES
References
Angle, E. H. (1907). Treatment of maloc-
clusion of the teeth. 7th Edition. S. S.
White & Co., Philadelphia.
Baz, D. (1958). Analysis of dental arch
form International Dental Journal, 8:
291-294.
Black, G. V. (1894). Descriptive anatomy of
the human teeth. 3rd Edition. Wilmington
Dental Manufacturing Co., Philadelphia.
Bonwill, W. G. A. (1885). Geometrical and
mechanical laws of articulation. Trans-
actions of the odontological society of
Pennsylvania: 119-133.
Brader, A. C. (1972). Dental arch form related
to intraoral forces: P R = C . American
Journal of Orthodontics, 61: 541-561.
Burstone, C. J. (1979). Uses of the computer
in orthodontic practice. Journal of Clinical
Orthodontics, 13: 442-453. 539-551.
Chuck, G. C. (1934). Ideal arch form. Angle
Orthodontist, 4: 312-327.
Currier, J. H. (1969). Human dental arch
form. American Journal of Orthodontics,
56: 164-179.
Faber, R. D., Burstone, C. J. and Solonche.
D. J. (1978). Computerized interactive
orthodontic treatment planning. American
Journal of Orthodontics, 73: 36-46.
Hawley, C. A. (1905). Determination of the
normal arch and its application to
orthodontia. Dental Cosmos, 47: 541-552.
Hellman, M. (1919). Dimensions vs. form in
teeth and their bearing on the morphology
of the dental arch. International Journal of
Orthodontia, 5: 615-651.
Herren, P., Schmoker, R. and Jordi, Th.
(1973). Arch shape and space balance
determined by the arcogramme technique
Transactions of the European Orthodontic
Society, 49: 61-73.
Izard, G. (1927). New method for the
determination of the normal arch by the
function of the face. International Journal
of Orthodontia, J3: 582-595.
Kato, S., Kubota, K., Hashimoto, T ,
Wada, K., Araki, S. and Lee, S. F. (1964).
Study on the positions of teeth and the
average form of the dental arch. Journal of
283
the Nihon University School of Dentistry,
6: 111-121.
Lu, K. H. (1964). Analysis of dental arch
symmetry (Abst.). Journal of Dental Re-
search, 43: 780.
Marcotte, M. R. (1976). The use of the
occlusogram in planning orthodontic treat-
ment. American Journal of Orthodontics-
69:655-667.
McConnail, M. A. and Scher, E. A. (1949).
The ideal arch form of the human dental
arcade with some prosthetic application.
Dental Record, 69: 285-302.
Moss, J. P. (1980). The soft tissue environ-
ment of the teeth and jaws. An experi-
mental and clinical study. British Journal of
Orthodontics, 7: 127-137, 205-216.
Musich, D. R. and Ackerman, J. L. (1973).
The catenometer, a reliable device for
Downloaded from by guest on January 14, 2015
estimating dental arch perimeter. American
Journal of Orthodontics, 63: 366-375.
Pepe, S. H. (1975). Polynomial and catenary
curve fits to human dental arches. Journal
. of Dental Research, 54: 1124-1132.
Proffit, W. R. (1978). Equilibrium theory
revisited. Factors influencing position of
the teeth, Angle Orthodontist, 48: 175-186.
Remsden, W. H. (1964). Co-ordinated arches.
An investigation into the form and inter-
relationship of orthodontic arch wires.
Masters Thesis. Temple University School
of Dentistry, June: 27-29.
Sanin, C , Savara, B. S., Thomas, D. R.,
Clarkson, Q. D. (1970). Arc length of the
dental arch estimated by multiple regres-
sion. Journal of Dental Research, 49: 885.
Scott, J. H. (1967). Dento-facial development
and growth. Pergamon Press: Oxford.
Scott, J. H. (1957). The shape of the dental
arches. Journal of Dental Research, 36:
996-1003.
Shulof, R. (1975). Data-Bits, Rocky Moun-
tain data systems. 3.
Sicher, H. (1952). Oral anatomy. 2nd Edition.
C. V. Mosby Co.,
Stanton, F. L. (1922). Arch predetermination
and a method of relating the predetermined
arch to the malocclusion to show the
minimum tooth movement. International
Journal Orthodontia, 8: 757-778.
284
Tomes, C. (1873). The bearing of the develop-
ment of the jaws on irregularities. Dental
Cosmos, 15: 292-296.
Wheeler, R. C. (1950). A textbook of dental
anatomy and physiology, 2nd edition,
W. B. Saunders Company, Philadelphia,
196-215, 352-406.
White, L. W. (1977). Accurate arch
IDEAL ARCHES
discrepancy measurements. American
Journal of Orthodontics, 72: 303-308.
White, L. W. (1978). Individual ideal arches.
Journal of Clinical Orthodontics, 12: 779-
787.
Williams, P. N. (1917). Determining the
shape of the normal arch. Dental Cosmos,
59: 695-708.
Downloaded from by guest on January 14, 2015