Digital Assessment of Transverse Maxillary Arch Measurements for Predicting Arch Length: Implications for Early Orthodontic Diagnosis and Preventive Dentistry

Volume 12 , Issue 2 , August 2025 , Pages 50-58

Authors

Aras Rauf 1

1 Department of Pedodontics and Commumity Oral Health, College of Dentistry, University of Sulaimani, Sulaymaniyah 46001, Iraq.

DOI logo 10.17656/sdj.10210

Keywords

Abstract

Objective: The aim of this study was to investigate the possible correlation between the maxillary dental arch length and three other transverse linear measurements on three-dimensional digital models for developing a predictive model to be applied in early orthodontic diagnosis and prevention of the possible future malocclusion.

Methods: A sample of 108 digital models of maxillary dental arches was derived from the scanned images belonging to orthodontic patients aged 18 to 25 years in Sulaimani City. Transverse dimensions and arch length were digitally measured, and the data were analyzed with the Statistical Package for the Social Sciences (SPSS, V. 25). 

Results: A pilot study was conducted to assess the reliability of measurements between conventional and digital methods for evaluating dental arch dimensions. The results showed no statistically significant differences between the two approaches. No significant gender differences were found in regard to the measurements. Correlation analysis demonstrated no significant relationship between dental arch length and inter-molar width (rho = 0.028, p = 0.776), inter-premolar width (rho = 0.004, p = 0.965), or inter-canine width (rho = 0.046, p = 0.638). However, significant positive correlations were observed among the three transverse arch dimensions: inter-molar and inter-premolar widths (rho = 0.687), inter-molar and inter-canine widths (rho = 0.682), and inter-premolar and inter-canine widths (rho = 0.926).

Conclusions: Within the study’s limitations, no significant correlations were found between arch length and transverse linear measurements; therefore, a predictive model could not be established. Although inter-premolar and inter-molar widths showed statistically significant correlations, they did not contribute meaningfully to predicting arch length. Personalized evaluation using digital tools remains essential for accurate orthodontic planning and prevention of future malocclusion.

References

  1. Aksu M, Kocadereli I. Arch width changes in extraction and non-extraction treatment in class I patients. Angle Orthod. 2005;75:948–52.
  2. Al-Ansari NB, Abdul Ameer SA, Nahidh M. A new method for prediction of dental arch perimeter. Clin Cosmet Investig Dent. 2019;11:393–7.
  3. Mahmood TMA, Noori AJ, Aziz ZH, Rauf AM, Kareem FA. Scan-aided dental arch width prediction via internationally recognized formulas and indices in a sample of Kurdish population/Iraq. Diagnostics. 2023;13:1900.
  4. Nikolajević-Stoican AN, Alexa VT, Jumanca D, Galuscan A, Oancea R, Lalescu D, Szuhanek C. Enhancing diagnostic accuracy in orthodontics: Calibration and validation of a new tool for dental arch measurements—Pilot study. Appl Sci. 2024;14:2272.
  5. Bernabé E, Castillo CED, Flores-Mir C. Intra-arch occlusal indicators of crowding in the permanent dentition. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop. 2005;128:220–5.
  6. Poosti M, Jalali T. Tooth size and arch dimension in uncrowded versus crowded class I malocclusions. J Contemp Dent Pract. 2007;8:45–52.
  7. Schirmer UR, Wiltshire WA. Manual and computer-aided space analysis: A comparative study. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop. 1997;112:676–80.
  8. Santoro M, Galkin S, Teredesai M, Nicolay OF, Cangialosi TJ. Comparison of measurements made on digital and plaster models. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop. 2003;124:101–5.
  9. Hans M. When will 3-dimensional (3D) imaging become practical in private practice? Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop. 2002;122:14A.
  10. D’Ambrosio F, Giordano F, Sangiovanni G, Di Palo MP, Amato M. Conventional versus digital dental impression techniques: What is the future? An umbrella review. Prosthesis. 2023;5:851–75.
  11. Kareem FA, Rauf AM, Rasheed TA, Hussain FA. Correlation of three dimensions of palate with maxillary arch form and perimeter as predictive measures for orthodontic and orthognathic surgery. Children. 2021;8:514.
  12. Kareem FA, Rauf AM, Noori AJ, Ali Mahmood TM. Prediction of the dental arch perimeter in a Kurdish sample in Sulaimani City based on other linear dental arch measurements as a malocclusion preventive measure. Comput Math Methods Med. 2020;2020:8869996.
  13. Kareem FA, Rasheed TA, Rauf AM, Jalal RA, Faraj BM. Three-dimensional measurements of the palate and dental arch perimeter as predictors for maxillary palatal canine impaction—A cone-beam computed tomography image analysis. Diagnostics. 2023;13:1808.
  14. Singh S, Saraf BG, Indushekhar KR, Sheoran N. Estimation of the intercanine width, intermolar width, arch length, and arch perimeter and its comparison in 12–17-year-old children of Faridabad. Int J Clin Pediatr Dent. 2021;14(3):369–75.
  15. Khan EB, Soomar S, Shah M, Fatima S, Khan S, Ahmed Z, et al. Comparative assessment of various cephalometric facial planes with intercanine width in orthodontic patients. J Orthod Sci. 2022;11:22.
  16. Dost H, Ehsan AA, Sakrani H, et al. The analysis of intermolar width and skeletal base class as a predictor of potential maxillary canine impaction in permanent dentition: A cross-sectional study. Glob Pediatr Health. 2024;11:2333794.
  17. Hnat WP, Braun S, Chinhara A, Legan HL. The relationship of arch length to alterations in dental arch width. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop. 2000;118(2):184–8.
  18. Al-Zubair NM. The relationship between mandibular arch length and widths in a sample of Yemeni subjects with normal dento-skeletal relationship. J Orthod Sci. 2013;2(4):120–3.
  19. Sodhi JS, Sodhi SK. An evaluation of arch form and dimension in a local population in southern India. Indian J Dent Sci. 2015;7(3):12–6.
  20. Schwendicke F, Krois J, Gomez J. Artificial intelligence in dentistry: Chances and challenges. J Dent Res. 2020;99(7):769–74.
  21. Yoon SJ, Kim BK, Kim SY. Development and application of artificial intelligence in orthodontics. Korean J Orthod. 2021;51(4):247–58.
  22. Bano AM, Babu KY. Comparison of intercanine and intermolar width of the maxilla as an aid in gender determination: A preliminary study. Drug Invent Today. 2018;10:31495.
  23. Lavelle CLB. Maxillary and mandibular tooth size in different racial groups and in different occlusal categories. Am J Orthod. 1972;61(1):29–37.
  24. Hassanali J, Odhiambo JW. Analysis of dental arch widths in a Kenyan population. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop. 2000;118(6):687–92.
  25. Mangano FG, Hauschild U, Admakin O. The role of intraoral scanners in modern dentistry: A narrative review. J Clin Med. 2022;11(7):1817.
  26. Kwon JH, Kim JE, Kim HY, Park JM, Heo SJ, Koak JY. Evaluation of complete arch accuracy and scanning time of five intraoral scanners used in vivo. J Adv Prosthodont. 2023;15(2):72–81.
  27. Henriksen BM, Faerovig E, Sandvik L, Ronold HJ. Comparison of digital and conventional impression techniques: Evaluation of accuracy, time, and patient comfort. J Prosthet Dent. 2023;130(4):728–34.
  28. Patel N, El Wardani A, Eckert G, Inoue N. Trueness and precision of eight intraoral scanners in the full arch implant setting: An in vitro study. Clin Oral Implants Res. 2024;35(1):77–87.
  29. Alkhatib MN, Ghanim A, Manton DJ, Maher M. Sex differences in dental arch dimensions in children and adolescents: A systematic review. J Orthod. 2020;47(2):90–100.
  30. Lombardo L, Fattori L, Mollica F, Siciliani G. Three-dimensional dental arch variation in untreated adults. Angle Orthod. 2018;88(6):665–72.
  31. Bayome M, Park JH, Kook YA. New three-dimensional analyses of dental arch forms with tooth and bone supported structures. Korean J Orthod. 2014;44(5):236–43.
  32. Ferrario VF, Sforza C, Miani A, Tartaglia GM. Mathematical modeling of dental arch form in human permanent healthy dentitions. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop. 1999;115(1):114–20.
  33. Al-Khateeb SN, Abu Alhaija ES, Hammad MM. Maxillary arch dimensions and arch form variations in Class II Division 1 malocclusion. Orthod Craniofac Res. 2011;14(4):207–14.
  34. Barbosa MC, de Souza MM, Nunes MF. Dental arch dimensions in Brazilian children with normal occlusion. Braz Dent J. 2009;20(1):51–5.
  35. Bishara SE, Jakobsen JR, Treder J, Nowak A. Arch width changes from 6 weeks to 45 years of age. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop. 1997;111(4):401–9.
  36. Hassan A, Yousef M, Khattab A. Accuracy of dental arch measurements in digital models: A systematic review. Eur J Dent. 2023;17(1):115–22.
  37. Bogdanov V, Yordanova G, Gurgurova G. Change in dental arch parameters—Perimeter, width and length after treatment with a printed RME appliance. Appl Sci. 2024;14:3959.
  38. Alvarado-Lorenzo A, Antonio-Zancajo L, Curto A. Reproducibility and reliability of dental arch measurements: Comparing manual, digital, and app-based methods. BMC Oral Health. 2024;24:1568.
Statistics
  • Article view756
  • Downloads14
  • First online1 August 2025
  • Published at1 August 2025

  • RIS
  • BibTeX
  • EndNote
  • Mendeley
  • APA (7th edition)
  • MLA (9th edition)
  • Chicago
  • Harvard
  • IEEE
  • Vancouver