Journal of Pharmacy And Bioallied Sciences
Journal of Pharmacy And Bioallied Sciences Login  | Users Online: 5747  Print this pageEmail this pageSmall font sizeDefault font sizeIncrease font size 
    Home | About us | Editorial board | Search | Ahead of print | Current Issue | Past Issues | Instructions | Online submission

 Table of Contents  
Year : 2015  |  Volume : 7  |  Issue : 5  |  Page : 85-86  

Correlation between arch form and facial form: A cross sectional study

Department of Prosthodontics, Sree Balaji Dental College and Hospital, Chennai, Tamil Nadu, India

Date of Submission31-Oct-2014
Date of Decision31-Oct-2014
Date of Acceptance09-Nov-2014
Date of Web Publication30-Apr-2015

Correspondence Address:
Dr. Sanjna Nayar
Department of Prosthodontics, Sree Balaji Dental College and Hospital, Chennai, Tamil Nadu
Login to access the Email id

Source of Support: None, Conflict of Interest: None

DOI: 10.4103/0975-7406.155816

Rights and Permissions

Arch form is a key determinant in teeth position. Teeth selection and placement must be based on the functional and esthetic needs of the patient. Keeping in mind, the biomechanics involved with the prosthesis. The aim of the study was to evaluate the correlation between arch form and facial form. About 40 individuals in the age group of 20-25 years were involved in the study. The arch form and facial form were analyzed statistically to check for any correlation. It was found that, 63.63% of leptoprosophic individuals had squarish arch form while, 54.6% of mesoprosophic faces had ovoid arch form.

Keywords: Arch form, facial form, leptoprosophic, mesoprosophic

How to cite this article:
Nayar S, Aruna, Santhosh, Manzoor W. Correlation between arch form and facial form: A cross sectional study. J Pharm Bioall Sci 2015;7, Suppl S1:85-6

How to cite this URL:
Nayar S, Aruna, Santhosh, Manzoor W. Correlation between arch form and facial form: A cross sectional study. J Pharm Bioall Sci [serial online] 2015 [cited 2022 Aug 11];7, Suppl S1:85-6. Available from:

Arch form refers to the overall configuration of the dental arch, and this takes into account the symmetry, roundness, elongation and convexity. The size and shape of the dental arches have a considerable effect on diagnosis and treatment planning, space availability, stability of prosthesis and esthetics. Facial form can be classified as leptoprosopic, euryprosopic and mesoprosopic depending on the facial indices. [1] It is common to use facial measurements as a guide for selection of anterior teeth. The selection of maxillary anterior teeth must be in proportion with facial measurements to achieve good esthetics. The aim of this study is to determine the correlation between the facial form and arch form, which could be used as a guide in teeth selection.


The aim of this study was to determine the correlation between facial form and arch form in dentulous patients.

   Materials and Methods Top

A cross sectional study was conducted in the Department of Prosthodontics, Sree Balaji Dental College and Hospital, Chennai. Forty subjects in the age group of 20-25 years were involved in the study, and their informed consent was obtained. Inclusion criteria were involved presence of the full complement of teeth and subjects in the age group of 20-25 years. Exclusion criteria were the presence of craniofacial syndromes, previous dentoalveolar surgery, orthodontic treatment and dental anomalies.

To determine the facial form, the bizygomatic width was measured using a sliding caliper. The facial length was measured using sliding caliper from Nasion to Gnathion (N-Gn). Facial form was then obtained from the formulae, [2]

Depending on the value, the facial form is divided into three categories (Banister's classification) as euryprosophic, mesoprosophic and leptoprosophic.

To determine the arch form, the distance between the intercanine line to incisal surface of maxillary central incisor was measured. The arch form was divided into three groups as squarish, ovoid and tapering [Figure 1].
Figure 1: Measuring arch dimension

Click here to view

   Results Top

Association of each archform tested with the respective class of occlusion using Pearson Chi-square test. The overall results showed a significant association with P = 0.749 depicting that there is a correlation between various arch forms and the facial form [Table 1] and [Figure 2].
Figure 2: Bar graph depicting prevalence of arch form and facial form

Click here to view
Table 1: Percentage of arch form and facial form

Click here to view

   Discussion Top

The pattern of arch form in the overall sample and the individual face types were seen to find any possible associations of the arch forms with the craniofacial pattern. The anterior ratio characterizes the anterior curve of the arch. This part of the arch depends on the length and width of the incisivocanine arch. [3] When the anterior ratio was considered in the whole sample, similar results for both the arches were seen in both the maxillary and mandibular arches.

In the upper arch, the predominant arch form in leptoprosophic faces was squarish arch (63.63%) whereas ovoid arches were predominant in mesoprosophic faces (54.6%).

In prosthetics, arch form plays a major role in teeth selection and arrangement. The recent trend in prosthetic is to replace the teeth by placing implants. Implant position and number are based on the biomechanics, which varies between arches.

In completely edentulous maxilla, the number of implants placed in premailla depends on the arch form and the facial cantilever. Squarish arch form has fewer cantilever forces anteriorly when compared to the tapering arches. Thus, tapering arches require additional implant in the premaxilla to counter act these harmful forces.

This study gives us an idea about the facial form in relation with the arch form and location of the implant with respect to the facial proportion and arch form.

   References Top

Williams PL, Bannister LH, Berry MM, Collins P, Dyson M, Dussek JE. Gray's Anatomy: The Anatomical Basis of Medicine and Surgery. 38 th ed. New York: Churchill Livingstone; 2000.  Back to cited text no. 1
Umar MS, Singh R, Shugaba AI. Cephalometric indices among Nigerians. J Appl Sci 2006;6:939-42.  Back to cited text no. 2
Kageyama T, Domínguez-Rodríguez GC, Vigorito JW, Deguchi T. A morphological study of the relationship between arch dimensions and craniofacial structures in adolescents with Class II Division 1 malocclusions and various facial types. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop 2006;129:368-75.  Back to cited text no. 3


  [Figure 1], [Figure 2]

  [Table 1]

This article has been cited by
1 Evaluation of dental arch forms of Indo-Aryan and Mongoloid ethnicity using 3D models and its correlation with preformed archwires: A cross-sectional study
Atrayee Barman, ManinderSingh Sidhu, Seema Grover, Namrata Dogra, Ashish Dabas
Journal of International Oral Health. 2021; 13(1): 29
[Pubmed] | [DOI]
2 A systematic review on improving the biocompatibility of titanium implants using nanoparticles
Nthabiseng Nhlapo, Thywill Cephas Dzogbewu, Olga de Smidt
Manufacturing Review. 2020; 7: 31
[Pubmed] | [DOI]


    Similar in PUBMED
   Search Pubmed for
   Search in Google Scholar for
 Related articles
    Access Statistics
    Email Alert *
    Add to My List *
* Registration required (free)  

  In this article
    Materials and Me...
    Article Figures
    Article Tables

 Article Access Statistics
    PDF Downloaded78    
    Comments [Add]    
    Cited by others 2    

Recommend this journal