A computerized analysis of the shape and stability of

mandibular arch form

J. Mark Felton, D.D.S., M.S.D.,* Peter M. Sinclair, D.D.S., M.S.D.,f* Daniel L. Jones, Ph.D.,**
and Richard G. Alexander, D.D.S., M.S.D.****
Dallas, Texas

To determine whether a particular ideal orthodontic arch form could be identified, the mandibular
dental casts of 30 untreated normal cases, 30 Class I nonextraction cases, and 30 Class II
nonextraction cases were examined. Following computerized digitizing and the use of a mathematic
function called polynomial of the fourth degree, arch forms were generated for each sample and
then compared to 17 commercially produced arch forms. Results showed that no particular arch form
predominated in any of the three samples. A shape representing a combination of the “Par” and
“Vari-Simplex” arch forms approximated to only 50% of the cases in the three samples. The remaining
50% of the cases displayed a wide variety of arch forms. Cases that had changes in arch form
during nonextraction treatment frequently were not stable; almost 70% showed significant long-term
posttreatment changes. Customizing arch forms appears to be necessary in many cases to obtain
optimum long-term stability because of the great individual variability in arch form found in this study.
(AM J ORTHOD DENTOFAC ORTHOP 1987;92:478-83.)

T he achievement of a stable, functional, and

esthetic arch form has long been one of the prime ob-
jectives of orthodontics. A key aspect in the achieve-
ment of this goal is the identification of a suitable arch
form to use in the treatment of each case.‘,* Many cli-
nicians tend to adopt one particular arch form for the
treatment of all malocclusions. The arch form chosen
is often the one that creates, in the orthodontist’s opin-
ion, the optimum esthetic and functional occlusion.3-7
Despite numerous investigations, there is currently little
agreement as to the best size and shape for an ideal
orthodontic arch form. It has long been suggested that
considerable variability occurs in the arch forms of dif-
ferent types of malocclusions, which, if proved true,
may preclude the effective use of a single ideal arch
form for all cases.8-‘3
For more than 100 years, researchers have been
trying to define the “ideal” arch form, frequently using
the concept that the dental arch is symmetric in nature
and can be represented by an algebraic or geometric
Based on a thesis by J. Mark Felton submitted to the Department of Or&o-
dontics, Baylor College of Dentistry, Baylor University, in partial fulfillment
of the requirements for the degree of master of science in dentistry.
This research was supported in part by Baylor College of Dentistry Research
funds.
*Orthodontist in private practice, Oklahoma City, Okla.
**Associate Professor, Department of Orthodontics, Baylor College of Den-
tistry.
***Dental student, Baylor College of Dentistry.
****Clinical Professor, Department of Orthodontics, Baylor College of Den-
thy.
478
formula. Shapes investigated have included the el-
lipse,7.‘4*‘5parabola,‘6*‘7 and catenary curveI as well as
mathematic formulas such as the cubic spline,‘g~20conic
section,” and polynomial function.22~23Each of these
shapes has received both praise and criticism, and sev-
eral form the basis from which commercially produced
arch forms have been derived.3,4,7*24-27
Recently, the idea of individualizing arch forms
from the original mandibular arch has become more
popular.9~‘3*Z8With the continuing development of com-
puter-assisted analysis, this approach of custom de-
signing arch forms may provide the optimum solution
for accurately describing the ideal orthodontic arch form
for each case.‘g*22,23 With these developments in mind,
the purpose of this study was fourfold:
1. To determine whether a sample of untreated nor-
mal cases displayed a particular arch form
2. To determine whether samples of Class I and
Class II cases displayed similar arch form char-
acteristics
3. To determine if treatment-induced changes in
arch form were stable on a postretention eval-
uation
4. To determine whether any of 17 commercially
produced arch forms were suitable for use in the
majority of clinical cases
MATERIALS AND METHODS
The following samples were used in this study:
1. The mandibular dental casts of 30 skeletal and
Volume 92
Number 6
Table I. Sample characteristics
Retention
Pretreatment Posttreatment removal
X (yr-mo) X (yr-mo) X (yr-mo)
Class I 12-7 14-7 18-10
Class II 12-7 14-6 18-6
Mean postretention period: Class I, 9 years 3 months;
years 8 months.
dental Class I nonextraction orthodontically
treated cases, randomly selected on the basis of
the availability of records (23 female patients,
7 male patients).
2. The mandibular dental casts of 30 skeletal and
dental Class II nonextraction orthodontically
treated cases (18 female patients, 12 male pa-
tients), randomly selected on the basis of the
availability of records (ANB > 4, Class II
molars)
3. Mandibular dental casts of 30 untreated normal
cases (19 female subjects, 11 male subjects)
from the sample of 120 cases of Dr. Lawrence
Andrews of San Diego, Calif., which was used
to derive the “six keys to occlusion” and the
“straight wire appliance.“29
Pretreatment and posttreatment mandibular dental
casts were examined for each of the treated cases, which
were from the practice of one of the authors (R.G.A.)
(Table I). Postretention casts were available for 15 of
the Class I and 15 of the Class II cases (that is, patients
who responded to a recall request). None of the cases
had undergone any palatal expansion, orthognathic sur-
gery, or fixed prosthodontic therapy. Patients with miss-
ing teeth or obvious tooth size discrepancies were not
included in the study. All the treated cases in this sample
underwent therapy in the 1960s and early 1970s with
fully banded, nonstraight wire, 0.01 &inch slot systems.
The arch form used was individualized for each case,
based on the original mandibular arch and the clini-
cian’s concept of an optimum arch form.
On each of the mandibular casts for all three sam-
ples, a lead pencil was used to clearly mark the midpoint
of the incisal surface of the incisors, the cusp tips of
the canines, the buccal cusp tips of the first and second
premolars, and the mesiobuccal cusp tip of the first
molars (Fig. 1). A point midway between the central
incisors was also marked to serve as a point of origin
and as a midline reference. The occlusal surfaces of
the casts were then photocopied with a millimeter scale
placed adjacent to the teeth and any magnification
caused by the photocoping process was then automat-
Computerized analysis of mandibular arch form 479
Postretention
X (yr-mo)
28-l
25-2
Class II, 6 1 13
Fig. 1. Points digitized on the dental casts.
ically corrected using a known reference on the milli-
meter scale. The cusp tips were used rather than the
most buccal points on the teeth’s labial surfaces because
labial surface points frequently could not be accurately
marked on the model and then reproduced during the
photocopying process. The photocopied images were
placed on the recording surface of a digitizer and 13
points were digitized and recorded from each cast. Re-
measurement of 10 casts showed no statistically sig-
nificant measurement error.
A sample of 17 commercially produced arch forms
(ten basic shapes with a total of 17 sizes) was photo-
copied in a similar fashion (Table II, Fig. 2). Based on
data for the normal mesiodistal size of mandibular teeth,
pencil marks representing the positions of the cusp tips
of the mandibular teeth were made on the photocopied
images of the arch forms.3o Each of these arch forms
was then digitized in turn and, using a mathematic
function known as a polynomial of the fourth degree,
a mathematic equation was computed that would de-
scribe the exact shape and characteristics of each of the
arch forms.
Changes in arch form during treatment and postre-
tention were calculated using the polynomial function
to provide smooth symmetric shapes for evaluation.
Comparisons were made of the arch forms of each of
the three samples and then of the three samples and the
17 commercial arch forms to determine the best fits.
Similar comparisons were made with the arch forms
broken down into anterior (incisor) and posterior seg-
ments. Differences between the canine and molar
widths of the casts of each of the three samples and of
the arch forms were also calculated.
Statistical analysis involved the use of the Pearson
product-moment correlation coefficient to determine
480 Felton et al. Am. J. Orthod. Dentofac. Orthop.
December 1987

Table II. Commercial arch forms used

Arch wire Arch wire
shapes sizes Arch wire name
1A 16 1c 2
Awl AWla Brader arch form, size 58*
AWlb Brader arch form, size 54*
AWlc Brader arch form, size 50*
AW2 AW2 Pentamorphic, taperedt
AW3 AW3 Pentamorphic, narrow tapered?
AW4 AW4 Pentamorphic, normal?
AW5 AW5 Pentamorphic, narrow ovoid?
AW6 AW6 Pentamorphic, ovoid?
AW7 AW7a Par arch form, blue size$
7A 78 7c 8 AW7b Par arch form, white sizeS
AW7c Par arch form, black size*

/-v-In:/\
AW8 AW8 Bonwill-Hawley arch form8
AW9 AW9a Vari-Simplex, small sizes
AW9b Ku&Simplex, large size$
QA QB lOA IOB AWIO AWlOA Tru-Arch form, small size11
AWlOb Tru-Arch form, medium size11
AWlOc Tru-Arch form, large size11

Fig. 2.
f-71oc

The 17 commercial arch forms used.

*American
tRocky
SOrmco,
Orthodontics,
Mountain/Orthodontics,
Glendora,
BHawley (1905).
([“A” Company,
Calif.
Sheboygan,

Inc., San Diego, Calif.

Wis.
Denver, Colo.

the strength of the correlation between each of the arch
forms and the dental casts. Chi-square analysis, Stu-
dent’s t tests, and standard scores tiere used to deter-
mine the significance of the best fit scores and the com-
parisons of casts and arch forms.
RESULTS
I. Untreated normal sample. This sample showed
no predominance of any particular arch form and none
of the commercially available arch forms was found to
show a statistically superior closeness of fit (Table III).
The most commonly seen arch form was closest to the
shape of the Vari-Simplex* (27% of cases), closely
followed by the Tru-Arch? (20% of cases), and the Par
arch* form (17% of cases). Combining the data for the
very similar Par and Vari-Simplex arch forms showed
that this general shape, which represented 44% of the
untreated normal sample, was statistically (P < 0.05)
more common than the remaining arch forms.
2. Class I cases. This sample showed no predom-
inance of any particular arch form before treatment and
none of the commercially available arch forms was
found to show a statistically superior closeness of fit
(Table IV). A combination of the Par and Vari-Simplex
*Ormco, &ndora, Calif.
?“A” Company, Inc., San Diego, Calif.
arch forms, which represented the arch forms of over
50% of the pretreatment cases (16 of 30), was statis-
tically (P < 0.05) more common than the remaining
arch forms.
Posttreatment, no single arch form predominated
statistically despite the clinician’s preference for an arch
form similar to the Par and Vari-Simplex shapes, which
resulted in 18 of the 30 cases (60% of the sample)
having a different arch form posttreatment from that
which they displayed pretreatment. At the postretention
evaluation in 67% of the 15 cases followed to this stage,
changes made in arch form during treatment were not
maintained; most cases tended to return toward their
original arch form. No particular arch form predomi-
nated at the postretention evaluation.
3. Class II cases. This sample showed no predom-
inance of any particular arch form before treatment and
none of the commercially available arch forms was
found to show a statistically superior closeness of fit
(Table V). As in the Class I sample, a combination of
the Par and Vari-Simplex arch forms, representing 18
of the 30 cases (60%), was statistically (P < 0.05)
more common than the remaining arch forms. Post-
treatment, no single arch form predominated and 16 of
the 30 cases showed arch forms similar to those of the
Par and Vari-Simplex shapes. During treatment 21 of
the 30 cases (70% of the sample) had their arch forms
Volume 92
Number 6
Computerized analysis of mandibular arch form 481

Table Ill. Untreated normal group-Number of Table IV. Class 1 cases-Number of cases
cases showing best fits to commercial showing best fits to commercial arch forms
arch forms
Pretreatment Posttreatment Postretention
No. of cases No. of cases No. of cases
(total = 30) (total = 30) (total = IS)

Brader 6 2 0
Brader 2
Pentamorphic, 0 0 0
Pentamorphic, tapered 0
Pentamorphic, narrow tapered tapered
I
Pentamorphic , narrow 4 6 2
Pentamorphic, normal 4
Pentamorphic, narrow ovoid 0 tapered
Pentamorphic, ovoid cl Pentamorphic, normal 0 2 2
Par arch form 5 Pentamorphic, narrow 0 0 0
Bonwill-Hawley 4 ovoid
Vari-Simplex 8 Pentamorphic, ovoid 0 0 0
TN-Arch Par arch form 8 7 3
6
Bonwill-Hawley 3 2 0
Vari-Simplex 8 II 8
TN-Arch 1 0 0

changed and at the postretention evaluation it was found

that in 60% of the 15 cases followed to this stage, the
changes made in arch form during treatment were not Table V. Class II cases-Number of cases
maintained. No particular arch form predominated at showing best fits to commercial arch forms
the postretention period.
4. Comparison of arch widths between samples. Pretreatment Posttreatment Postretention
No. of cases No. of cases No. of cases
Before treatment the intercanine widths of the Class I (total = 30) (total = 30) (total = 15)
and Class II groups were statistically similar, but the
Class I group was 1.2 mm (P < 0.05) smaller than the Brader 2 I 2
untreated normal sample (Table VI). After treatment Pentamorphic, 1 0 1
tapered
(T2) all three groups had very similar intercanine widths
Pentamorphic, narrow 4 4 3
after the dimensions of the Class I and Class II groups tapered
had been increased by 0.8 and 0.7 mm, respectively, Pentamorphic, normal 1 2 0
during treatment. Postretention (T3), only the Class I Pentamorphic, narrow 0 0 I
group was statistically smaller (P < 0.001) than the ovoid
Pentamorphic, ovoid I 1 0
normal group, having had a 1.2 mm decrease from T2
Par arch form 9 8 0
to T3. Bonwill-Hawley I 2 0
Before treatment the intermolar widths of both the Vari-Simplex 9 8 8
Class I and Class II samples were smaller (P < 0.05) TN-Arch 2 4 0
than those of the normal group (Table VI). After treat-
ment (T2) all three intermolar widths were very similar;
the Class II group remained stable to T3 and the Class
I group showed a small (0.4 mm) reduction in inter- could be identified. The best that could be achieved was
molar width, causing it to be smaller (P < 0.01) than a general shape, represented by a combination of the
the normal group at T3. Par and Vari-Simplex arch forms, which still approxi-
mated to only 44% of the sample.
DISCUSSION
Looking at the question of whether specific mal-
Since the time of Edward Angle, orthodontists have occlusions have characteristic arch forms, this study
tried to determine the ideal arch form or “true line of found no specific arch form that would characterize
occlusion.” Many different solutions to this problem either Class I or Class II malocclusions.‘2,20 There was
have been proposed, but few have stood the test of little difference between the arch forms of the two
time. The results of this study tend to support previous groups; both showed just over half their cases approx-
findings suggesting that there is no single, universal, imating to the same combination of the Par and Vari-
ideal arch form applicable to all cases.8,‘o,‘2Biologic Simplex arch forms that was identified as having the
variability appears to be so great that even in a sample best fit for the untreated cases. Even with this lack of
of untreated normal cases, no predominant arch form uniformity, it was found that of the cases whose arch
402 Felton et al.
Table VI. Mandibular arch widths
Intercanine width (mm)
Sample Tl 7-2
Normal 26.3 26.3 26.3
Class I 25.1 25.9 24.1
Class II 25.6 26.3 25.4
forms were changed during treatment, close to 70% had
returned to their original shapes by the long-term post-
retention evaluation. These findings are similar to sev-
eral other studies that have suggested that changes in
mandibular arch form, such as might be caused by
expansion of canines, are not stable and that clinicians
should try to maintain the original arch form to increase
their chances for long-term stability.3’-35
The data from this study suggested that there was
a tendency for the patients in the Class I and Class II
malocclusion groups to have smaller arch widths than
the untreated normal group. Increasing the intercanine
width to approximately the dimensions of the normal
group during nonextraction treatment was found to be
unstable, while increases in the intermolar widths, par-
ticularly in the Class II sample, showed considerable
long-term stability as has been suggested previously.36.37
The use of a single arch form for all cases might thus
lead to a consistent tendency to increase arch dimen-
sions that the clinician may find to be unstable in a
considerable percentage of cases.
CONCLUSIONS
1. The cases in the untreated normal sample did
not show any particular ideal arch form.
2. The Class I and Class II samples’ pretreatment
arch forms were similar overall, but no one character-
istic arch form predominated in either group.
3. A combination of the arch forms represented by
the commercially produced “Par” and “Vari-Simplex”
shapes showed the closest fit, approximating about 50%
of the cases in all three samples. The remainder of the
cases showed a wide variety of arch forms.
4. Changes in arch form with treatment frequently
were not stable; almost 70% of cases showed significant
long-term posttreatment changes.
5. No one arch form can be expected to fit every
dental arch. Some customizing will be needed in many
cases to obtain the optimum stable orthodontic result.
The authors are greatly indebted to Dr. Lawrence An-
drews for allowing them accessto his office and records.
Am. .I. Orthod. Dentofac.Orthop.
December 1987
Intermolar width (mm)
T3 TI T2 T3
45.0 45.0 45.0
43.2 44.1 43.7
43.3 44.5 44.5
They would like to thank Drs. Moody Alexander, Martin
Wagner, and Edward Genecov for their advice, and Mrs.
Martha Black for typing the manuscript.
REFERENCES
1. Angle EH. Treatment of malocclusion of the teeth. 7th ed. Phil-
adelphia: SS White & Co., 1907.
2. Black GV. Descriptive anatomy of the human teeth. 3rd ed.
Philadelphia: Wilmington Dental Mfg. Co., 1894.
3. Bonwill WGA. Geometrical and mechanical laws of articulation.
Trans Ocont Sot Pa 1885;119:33.
4. Hawley CA. Determination of the normal arch and it application
to orthodontia. Dent Cosmos 1905;47:541-52.
5. McConnail MA, Scher EA. The ideal arch form of the human
dental arcade with some prosthetic application. Dent Record
1949;69:285-302.
6. Scott JH. The shape. of the dental arches. J Dent Res
1957;36:996-1003.
7. Brader AC. Dental arch form related to intraoral forces: PR = C.
AM J ORTHOD1972;61:541-61.
8. HellmanM. Dimensionsvs. form in teethand their bearingon
the morphologyof the dental arch. Int J Orthod 1919;5:615-51.
9. Stanton FL. Arch predetermination and a method of relating the
predetermined arch to the malocclusion to show the minimum
tooth movement. Int J Orthod 1922;8:757-78.
10. Izard G. New method for the determination of the normal arch
by the function of the face. Int J Orthod 1927;13:582-95.
11. Williams PN. Determining the shape of the normal arch. Dent
Cosmos 1917;59:695-708.
12. White LW. Individual ideal arches. J Clin Orthod 1978;12:
779-87.
13. Robnett JH. Segment concept in arch pattern design. AM J
ORTHOD1980;77:355-67.
14. Sicher H. Oral anatomy. 2nd ed. St. Louis: The CV Mosby
Company, 1974.
15. Currier JH. Human dental arch form. AM J ORTHOD1969;56:
164-79.
16. Wheeler RC. A textbook of dental anatomy and physiology. 2nd
ed. Philadelphia: WB Saunders Co., 1950:196-215, 352-406.
17. Burstone CJ. Uses of the computer in orthodontic practice. J
Clin Orthod 1979;13:442-53, 539-51.
18. Musich DR. Ackerman JL. The cantenometer, a reliable device
for estimating dental arch perimeter. AM J ORTHOD1973;63:
366-75.
19. BeGole EA. Application of the cubic spline function in the de-
scription of dental arch form. J Dent Res 1980;59:1549-56.
20. Diggs DB. The quantification of arch form [M.S.D. thesis].
Seattle: University of Washington, 1982.
Volume 92 Computerized analysis of mandibular arch form 483
Number 6

21. Sampson PD. Dental arch shape: a statistical analysis using conic
sections. AM J ORTHOD 1981;79:535-48.
22. Lu KH. Analysis of dental arch symmetry [Abstract]. J Dent
Res 1%4;43:780.
23. Sanin C, Savara BS, Thomas DR. Clarkson OD. Arc length of
the dental arch estimated by multiple regression. J Dent Res
1970;49:885.
24. McKelvain GD, An arch form designed for use with a specific
straight wire orthodontic appliance [MSD thesis]. Dallas: Baylor
College of Dentistry, 1982.
25. Engel GA. Preformed arch wires: reliability of fit. AM J ORTHOD
1979;76:497-504.
26. Ricketts RM. Research in factors of appliance design and arch
form. Pacific Palisades, California: Foundation for Orthodontic
Research, 1979.
27. Roth RH. Straight wire mechanics syllabus. Burlingame, Cali-
fornia: Foundation for Advanced Continuing Education, 1978.
28. Andrews LF. The six keys to occlusion. AM J ORTHOD
1972;62:296-309.
29. Andrews LF. The straight wire appliance. Br J Orthod 1979;
6125-43.
30. Moorrees CFA. The dentition of the growing child. Cambridge,
Massachusetts: Harvard Press, 1959.
3 1. Gardner SD. Posttreatment and postretention changes following
orthodontic therapy. Angle Grthod 1976;46: 151-61.
32. Reidel RA. Retention. In: Graber TM, Swain B, eds. Current
orthodontic concepts and techniques, vol 1, 2nd ed. St. Louis:
The CV Mosby Company, 1985:1095-1137.
33. Strang RHW. The fallacy of denture expansion as a treatment
procedure. Angle Orthod 1949; 19:12-7.
34. Walter DC. Changes in the form and dimension of dental arches
resulting from orthodontic treatment. Angle Grthod 1953;23:
3-18.
35. McCauley DR. The cuspid and its function in retention. Am J
Orthod 1944;30:196-205.
36. Coombs CL, Deming DC. An evaluation of dental arch form
during and following orthodontic treatment as determined by
spline curves. Eugene, Oregon: University of Oregon, 1979.
37. Shapiro PA. Mandibular arch form and dimension. AM J ORTHOD
1974;66:58-70.
Reprint requests to:
Dr. Peter Sinclair
Baylor College of Dentistry
3302 Gaston Ave.
Dallas, TX 75246