CE

ORIGINAL ARTICLE
The relationship of arch length to alterations in dental arch width

William P. Hnat, PhD,a Stanley Braun, DDS, MME,b Antony Chinhara, DMD, MS,c and Harry L. Legan, DDS,d
Louisville, Ky, Harare, Zimbabwe, and Indianapolis, Ind

An accurate method is presented for forecasting alterations in arch length related to various width increases in
each dental arch. It is based on combined beta and hyperbolic cosine functions which express the expanded
den- tal arches with correlation coefficients of r = 0.98, between measured data and representations of the
dental arch. When the midpalatal suture is expanded, canine width and molar width alterations are not equal
because the line of action of the expanding force is anterior to the center of resistance of the dentomaxillary
complex. Therefore, canine to molar width ratio alterations of 1:1, 1.25:1, and 1.5:1 are examined, and simple
linear functions are pre- sented for purposes of predicting changes in arch length. (Am J Orthod Dentofacial
Orthop 2000;118:184-8)

ncreases in arch width have been recommended for a

I variety of reasons: (1) the correction of posterior
crossbites, (2) to redirect dentoskeletal development of
the developing dentition to achieve more normal rela-
tionships that may consequently reduce or eliminate
1-8
later treatment, (3) the elimination of potential dele-
0.25 mm. The method of obtaining these guidelines was not
terious effects on the temporomandibular structures,9,10
(4) the improvement of nasal respiratory
competence.11 More recently, altering arch widths has
become popular as it potentiates nonextraction
therapy.12-14 It should be noted, however, that the
clinician does not yet have ade- quate diagnostic
criteria to identify those patients who may have their
dental arches expanded with acceptable long-term
stability.15-20
It has been reported by various clinicians11,21-23
that the anterior portion of the dental arch expands
more than the posterior portion during maxillary
sutural expansion and is likely to be related to the
resistance of the zygomatic buttresses. Others24-26
have reported that the mandibular arch is observed to
follow maxillary arch expansion because of the
influence of occlusion and alterations in the extraoral
tissue drape.
Some investigators have attempted to quantify the
peripheral arch length changes related to arch width
expansion. Adkins et al27 found an average increase in
arch perimeter of 4.7 mm for an average molar expan-
sion of 6.5 mm. This finding was obtained by
recording dental landmarks of 21 orthodontic patients
who had undergone rapid palatal expansion and did
not attempt
a
Associate Professor of Mechanical Engineering, J. B. Speed Scientific
School, University of Louisville.
b
Clinical Professor of Orthodontics, Vanderbilt University Medical Center.
c
Private Practice.
d
Professor and Chairman of Orthodontics, Vanderbilt University Medical
Center. Reprint requests to: Stanley Braun, DDS, MME, 7940 Dean Road,
Indianapolis, IN 46240
Submitted, August 1999; Revised and accepted, January 2000.
Copyright 2000 by the American Association of Orthodontists.
0889-5406/2000/$12.00 + 0 8/1/105570
doi.10.1067/mod.2000.105570
to account for any related canine expansion. General
guidelines have been reported by Ricketts et al, 28 stat-
ing that each millimeter of canine expansion provides
for a 1 mm increase in arch perimeter, and 1 mm of
molar expansion increased the peripheral arch length
revealed. Germane et al29 quantified the increase in
arch perimeter related to orthodontic expansion based
on the premise that the mathematic spline function
describes the dental arch with acceptable accuracy.
When the canine width and incisor positions were held
constant, an initial 1 mm increase in molar width pro-
duced an approximate 0.27 mm increase in perimeter,
the second millimeter produced an additional 0.31
mm, and the fifth millimeter of molar width increase
was related to a perimeter increase of 0.41 mm. When
the incisor positions were fixed, each millimeter of
canine expansion provided a 0.73 mm increase in arch
perime- ter. As Germane et al29 pointed out, individual
isolation of the width changes will cause an abnormal
arch form, and alterations in the canine region will
alter the incisor positions and premolar/molar widths.
Because the natural maxillary and mandibular arch
forms have recently been accurately described30 by the
mathematical beta function with a correlation coeffi-
cient (r) of 0.98, it is the purpose of this study to more
precisely relate alterations in arch width to arch
length.
MATERIAL AND METHODS
Because the force systems related to maxillary
sutural expansion are applied anterior to the center of
resistance of the dentomaxillary complex,31,32 the
canine width commonly changes more rapidly than
molar widths. Consequently, the alterations in arch
length are examined for canine width changes to molar
width changes (canine width/molar width) in ratios of
1:1, 1.25:1, and 1.5:1.
 In the early phase of this study, it was found that
the correlation coefficients for the beta function
describing

184
American Journal of Orthodontics and Dentofacial Orthopedics Hnat et al 185
Volume 118, Number 2

Fig 1. Correlation coefficients vs incremental arch width increases for various canine/molar width ratios.

Fig 2. Arch shape for the combined beta and hyperbolic cosine functions.

pre-expanded arch widths and depths of untreated den-

the entirety of the natural untreated dental arch dimin-
ished significantly as the arch widths were increased
as shown in Fig 1. Therefore, the expanded (altered)
den- tal arch is best modeled by 2 mathematical
functions: the hyperbolic cosine function for the 6
anterior teeth,33 and the beta function for the dentition
posterior to the canines. High correlation coefficients
are conse- quently maintained. Using average values
for the initial
tal arches,30 alterations in arch length related to
changes in molar and canine widths are studied with
accuracy. The arch shapes were assumed symmetric
and the coordinates were identified for the initial over-
all arch depth, initial molar width, and initial canine
width. These points were subsequently used to curve-
fit the beta and hyperbolic cosine functions to the
 Fig 3. Six anterior teeth described by the hyperbolic cosine function.

expanded dental arch. The overall arch depth and the Because the geometric relationship of the
anterior arch depth were held constant while the maxillary and mandibular arches have been well
canine and molar widths were varied. Each time the described by earlier investigators,34-36 the coordinated
widths were altered, the curve-fit routines were used alterations in mandibular arch length relative to that of
to emu- late the new arch shape as shown in Fig 2. The the maxillary arch can be calculated. This is limited to
arch length was calculated by summing the length of Angle Class I occlusion because a previous study has
seg- ments between the calculated coordinates. This shown that the relationship of the mandibular arch
pro- vides a satisfactory simulation for the arch length form to that of the maxillary arch form is significantly
since 36 coordinates were calculated for each dental
altered in occlu- sions other than Angle Class I.30
arch. Microsoft Excel (Microsoft Corp, Redmond,
Wash) was used to perform all calculations including RESULTS
curve- fits for the hyperbolic cosine and beta
Fig 4 illustrates alterations in maxillary arch length
functions.
for changes in the canine width to molar width ratios
The anterior arch segment, described by the hyper-
of 1:1, 1.25:1, and 1.5:1, in increments of 2 mm to 14
bolic cosine function, is given by
mm of molar expansion. Fig 5 illustrates alterations
x in mandibular arch length for the same canine width

[ ]
Y = cosh b cosh1(h+1) + 1.0 + to molar width ratios up to 14 mm of molar
expansion.
where b represents
h one-half the cross-arch distance
between the normal distal contacts of the right and left DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSIONS
canines, and h represents the distance measured along
A high correlation coefficient is maintained to the
a line from the contacts of the central incisors perpen-
form (coordinates) of the expanded maxillary and
dicular to a line connecting the distal contacts of the
related mandibular arches when the hyperbolic cosine
canines as shown in Fig 3.
function is used to represent the 6 anterior teeth and
The dental arch posterior to the distal contacts of
the beta function is used to represent the remaining
the canines bilaterally, described by the beta function,
poste- rior teeth. Because the canine to molar width
is given by
expansion ratios are a function of the point of
application of the
x 1 1 x
Y = 3.0314D [ w + 2 ]0.8[2 w] 0.8 expansion force relative to the center of resistance of
the dentomaxillary complex, 3 canine/molar ratios:
1:1, 1.25:1, and 1.5:1 were examined. Alterations in
where W represents the cross-arch distance between
arch length were calculated with the curve-fit routines.
the second molar contact points, in millimeters, and D
As an example, if the maxillary molar width is
the perpendicular distance from a line joining the
expanded 6 mm (3 mm per side), and the canine/molar
distal contact points of the canines anteriorly to a
expansion ratio is 1.25:1, then the arch length alter-
similar line joining the mesial contact points of the
ation is +5.4 mm (L = 0.9236[6] 0.1154). See Fig 4.
second molars, in millimeters.
Correspondingly, the mandibular arch length alteration
 Fig 4. Changes in maxillary arch length for canine/molar width ratios 1:1, 1.25:1, and 1.5:1.

Fig 5. Changes in mandibular arch length for canine/molar width ratios 1:1, 1.25:1, and 1.5:1.

is +5.6 mm (L = 0.9469[6] 0.1305), when the 2
arches are in Angle Class I occlusion. The relationship
between arch length alteration and molar width
expansion is lin- ear as illustrated by the high
correlation coefficients (r
= 0.999) of the linear fit equations in Figs 4 and 5.
In this example, when the mandibular molar width
is increased 6 mm, a total of 5.6 mm mandibular arch
length increase occurs. Based on previously reported
research, 33 the arch length increase in the anterior
segment (canine to canine) is 5.95 mm (L = 0.779
[1.25][W] + 0.111). For canine to molar width
expansion ratios of 1.25:1 and 1.5:1, a small decrease
in the posterior arch length actually occurs. This is
due to a reduction in the curvature of the arch form
from distal to the canines, and accounts for the small
variation in the results. Consequently, the clinician
can assume that most of the arch length gain occurs in
the anterior segment for all alterations in arch width.
When the arch width ratio is 1:1 (canine/molar), the
arch length gain in the anterior segment represents
95% of the total alteration.
The clinician now has a method, which was not
pre- viously available with any degree of accuracy, to
fore- cast alterations in arch length related to arch
width expansion. The clinician should be aware that if
the entirety of the arch length gain is not used in
reconcil- ing a pre-existing arch length deficiency, the
incisors anteroposterior position (arch depth) will
change.33
REFERENCES
1. Barnes RE. The early expansion of deciduous arches and its
effect on the developing permanent dentition. Am J Orthod
1956;42:83-97.
2. Clifford FO. Crossbite correction in the deciduous dentition:
principals and procedures. Am J Orthod 1971;59:343-9.
3. Harrold E. Some biological aspects of orthodontic treatment in
the transitional dentition. Am J Orthod 1963;49:1-14.
4. Haas AJ. The treatment of maxillary deficiency by opening the
midpalatal suture. Angle Orthod 1965;35:200-17.
5. Haas AJ. Palatal expansion: just the beginning of dentofacial
orthopedics. Am J Orthod 1970;57:219-55.
6. Moyers RF. Handbook of Orthodontics, 3d Ed. Chicago: Year-
book Medical Publications; 1974.
7. Ricketts RM. Early treatment. J Clin Orthod 1979;13:181-99.
8. Kutin G, Hawes RR. Posterior crossbites in the deciduous and
mixed dentition. Am J Orthod 1969;56:491-504.
9. Cheney EA. Indications and methods for the interruption of
functional cross-bite. Dent Clin N Am 1958; July 385-92.
10. Myers DR. Condylar position in children with functional
poste- rior crossbites: before and after crossbite correction. Ped
Dent 1980;2:190-4.
11. Haas AJ. Rigid expansion of the maxillary dental arch and nasal
cavity by opening of the midpalatal suture. Angle Orthod
1961:31:73-90.
12. Bishara SE, Staley RV. Maxillary expansion: clinical implica-
tions. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop 1987;91:13-4.
13. Bereocher WC, Mueller BH, Tinasff N. The effect of
maxillary palatal expansion on the primary dental arch
circumference. J Pediatr Dent 1980;2:27-30.
14. Guerrero C, Covtasti G. Transverse (horizontal)
mandibular defi- ciency. In: Bell WH, editor. Modern practice
in orthognathic and reconstructive surgery (Vol 3).
Philadelphia: WB Saunders; 1992. p. 2382-2402.
15. Schuler RJ. Cephalometric diagnosis of the increase in
mandibular arch length by utilizing buccal expansion for the
individual patient [Unpublished Masters Thesis]. Loma Linda
University, 1975.
16. Gardner SD, Chaconas SJ. Posttreatment and postretention changes
following orthodontic therapy. Angle Orthod 1976;46:151-61.
17. Strang RHW. The fallacy of dental expansion as a
treatment pro- cedure. Angle Orthod 1949;19:12-7.
18. Litowitz R. A study of the movements of certain teeth
during or following orthodontic therapy. Angle Orthod
1948;18:113-31.
19. Dona A. An analysis of dental casts of patients made
before and after orthodontic treatment [Unpublished Masters
Thesis]. Uni- versity of Washington, 1952.
20. Little LR, Riedel R. Mandibular arch length increase
during the mixed dentition, postretention evaluation of
stability and relapse. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop
1990;97:393-404.
21. Ekstrom C, Henrikson CO, Jensen R. Mineralization in the
mid- palatal suture after orthodontic expansion. Am J Orthod
1977; 71:449-55.
22. Wertz RA. Skeletal and dental changes accompanying
rapid midpalatal suture opening. Am J Orthod 1970;58:41-66.
23. Bell RA, LeCompte EJ. The effects of maxillary
expansion using a quad-helix appliance during the deciduous
and mixed dentition. Am J Orthod 1981;79:152-61.
24. Walter CW. Changes in the form and dimensions of dental
arches resulting from orthodontic treatment. Angle Orthod
1953;23:3-18
25. Haas AJ. Long-term posttreatment evaluation of rapid
palatal expansion. Angle Orthod 1980;50:189-217.
26. Cotton LA. Slow maxillary expansion: skeletal vs dental
response to low magnitude force in Macaca Mulatta. Am J
Orthod 1978;73:1-23.
27. Adkins MD, Nanda RS, Currier GF. Arch perimeter
changes in rapid palatal expansion. Am J Orthod Dentofacial
Orthop 1990;97:194-9.
28. Ricketts RM, Roth RH, Chaconis SJ, Schulhof RJ, Engel
GA. Orthodontic diagnosis and planning. USA Rocky
Mountain Data Systems 1982:194-200.
29. Germane N, Lindauer SJ, Rubenstein LK, Revere JH Jr,
Isaac- son RJ. Increase in arch perimeter due to orthodontic
expansion. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop 1991;100:421-7.
30. Braun S, Hnat WP, Fender DE, Legan HL. The form of the
human dental arch. Angle Orthod 1998;68:29-36.
31. Lee K, Ryu Y, Park Y, Rudolph DJ. A study of holographic
inter- ferometry on the initial reaction of the maxillofacial
complex during protraction. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop
1997; 111:623-32.
32. Braun S, Lee K, Legan HL. A re-examination of various
extrao- ral appliances in light of recent research findings. Angle
Orthod 1999;69:81-4.
33. Braun S, Hnat WP. Dynamic relationships of the
mandibular ante- rior segment. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop
1997;111:518-24.
34. Wheeler RC. A textbook of dental anatomy and
physiology. Philadelphia: WB Saunders; 1965.
35. Marcotte MR. The use of the occlusogram in planning ortho-
dontic treatment. Am J Orthod 1976;69:655-67.
36. White LW. The clinical use of occlusograms. J Clin Orthod
1982;2:92-103.