CC BY-NC-ND 4.0 · Eur J Dent 2014; 08(02): 224-228
DOI: 10.4103/1305-7456.130608
Original Article
Dental Investigation Society

Dental arch asymmetry

Nabil Muhsen Al-Zubair
Department of Orthodontics, Sana'a University, Sana'a, Yemen
› Author Affiliations
Further Information

Publication History

Publication Date:
25 September 2019 (online)


Objective: This study was conducted to assess the dental arch asymmetry in a Yemeni sample aged (18-25) years. Materials and Methods: The investigation involved clinical examination of 1479 adults; only 253 (129 females, 124 males) out of the total sample were selected to fulfill the criteria for the study sample. Study models were constructed and evaluated to measure mandibular arch dimensions. Three linear distances were utilized on each side on the dental arch: Incisal-canine distance, canine-molar distance and incisal-molar distance, which represent the dental arch segmental measurements. Results: When applying “t-test” at P < 0.05, no significant differences were found between the right and left canine-molar, incisal-canine and incisal-molar distances in both dental arches for both sexes. The greater variation (0.30 mm) was observed between right and left canine-molar distance in the maxillary dental arch in male and the smaller (0.04 mm) in the mandibular dental arch between the right and left canine-molar distance in females. Conclusion: The findings of the present study revealed a symmetrical pattern of dental arches, since the right and left sides showed no statistically significant difference. In general, it can be observed that the measurements related to the central incisors and canines have the widest range of reading and give the impression that the location of central incisor and canines to each other and to other teeth is the strongest factor in determining the dental arch asymmetry.


  • 1 Jacobson A. Radiographic Cephalometry from Basics to Videoimaging. Carol Stream, IL: Quintessence Publishing; 1995
  • 2 Bishara SE, Burkey PS, Kharouf JG. Dental and facial asymmetries, a review. Angle Orthod 1994; 64: 89-98
  • 3 Housley JA, Nanda RS, Currier GF, McCune DE. Stability of transverse expansion in the mandibular arch. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop 2003; 124: 288-93
  • 4 Little RM, Riedel RA, Stein A. Mandibular arch length increase during the mixed dentition: Postretention evaluation of stability and relapse. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop 1990; 97: 393-404
  • 5 Steadman SR. Changes of intermolar and intercuspid distances following orthodontic treatment. Angle Orthod 1961; 31: 207-15
  • 6 Felton JM, Sinclair PM, Jones DL, Alexander RG. A computerized analysis of the shape and stability of mandibular arch form. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop 1987; 92: 478-83
  • 7 Lundström A. Some asymmetries of dental arches, jaws, and skull, and their etiological significance. Am J Orthod 1961; 47: 81-106
  • 8 Maurice TJ, Kula K. Dental arch asymmetry in the mixed dentition. Angle Orthod 1998; 68: 37-44
  • 9 Slaj M, Jezina AM, Lauc T, Rajić-Mestrović S, Miksić M. Longitudinal dental arch changes in the mixed dentition. Angle Orthod 2003; 73: 509-14
  • 10 Hechter FJ. Symmetry and dental arch form of orthodontically treated patients. Dent J 1978; 44: 173-84
  • 11 Rose JM, Sadowsky C, BeGole EA, Moles R. Mandibular skeletal and dental asymmetry in Class II malocclusions. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop 1994; 105: 489-95
  • 12 Staley RN, Stuntz WR, Peterson LC. A comparison of arch widths in adults with normal occlusion and adults with Class II, Division 1 malocclusion. Am J Orthod 1985; 8: 163-9
  • 13 Nie Q, Lin J. Analysis and comparison of dental arch symmetry between different Angle's malocclusion categories and normal occlusion. Zhonghua Kou Qiang Yi Xue Za Zhi 2000; 35: 105-7
  • 14 Janson GR, Metaxas A, Woodside DG, Freitas MR, Pinzan A. Three-dimensional evaluation of skeletal and dental asymmetries in Class II subdivision malocclusions. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop 2001; 119: 406-18
  • 15 Cohen JT. Growth and development of the dental arches in children. J.A.D.A. 1940; 27: 1250-60
  • 16 McDougall PD, McNamara Jr JA, Dierks JM. Arch width development in Class II patients treated with the Fränkel appliance. Am J Orthod 1982; 82: 10-22
  • 17 Moorrees CF. Growth changes of the dental arches: A longitudinal study. J Can Dent Assoc 1958; 24: 449-57
  • 18 Sillman JH. Dimensional changes of the dental arches: Longitudinal study from birth to 25 years. Am J Orthod 1964; 50: 824-42
  • 19 Knott VB. Longitudinal study of dental arch widths at four stages of dentition. Angle Orthod 1972; 42: 387-94
  • 20 Bishara SE, Jakobsen JR, Treder JE, Stasi MJ. Changes in the maxillary and mandibular tooth size-arch length relationship from early adolescence to early adulthood. A longitudinal study. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop 1989; 95: 46-59
  • 21 Moorrees CF, Gron AM, Lebret LM, Yen PK, Fröhlich FJ. Growth studies of the dentition: A review. Am J Orthod 1969; 55: 600-16
  • 22 Ismail AM, Hissain N, Hatem S. Maxillary arch dimensions in Iraqi population sample. Iraqi Dent J 1996; 8: 111-20
  • 23 Younes SA. Maxillary arch dimensions in Saudi and Egyptian population sample. Am J Orthod 1984; 85: 83-8
  • 24 Al-Sarraf HA. Maxillary and mandibular dental arch dimensions in children aged 12-15 years with class I normal occlusion. “Cross-sectional study”. Master Thesis, Mosul University; Mosul, Iraq: 1996
  • 25 Mohammad IS. Maxillary arch dimensions: A cross sectional study between 9-17 years. Master Thesis, Baghdad University; Iraq: 1993
  • 26 Sawiris MM. The role of arthropometric measurements in the design of complete dentures. J Dent 1977; 5: 141-8
  • 27 Scott JH. The shape of the dental arches. J Dent Res 1957; 36: 996-1003
  • 28 Triviño T, Siqueira DF, Scanavini MA. A new concept of mandibular dental arch forms with normal occlusion. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop 2008; 133: 10.e15-22