Dental Arches in Various Ethnic Groups Cc. L, B. Lavette, M.D.S., Px.D TT. D. Foster, M.DS., F.D.S., D.Orth. R. M. Funny, MB, Ch.B. InTRopuctION It is well recognized that different ethnic groups of man show variations in the size and shape of the dental arch. For instance, Aitchison’, in a qualitative survey of the dental arches from Negroid, Mongoloid, Caucasoid, Asiatic Indian and Australian ab- original skulls, has shown that differ- ences exist between these races quite apart from the variation between in- dividuals within the various racial groups. Quantitative studies of size and shape of the dental arch have, in the main, been confined to single ethnic groups. For instance, reports of measurements of the dental arches have been made by Campbell’, and Brown, Barrett and Darroch* on Australian aborigines, by Moorrees and Reed'*, Moores", Knott”, and Holcomb and Meredith"? on North American Caucasoids, by Seipel? on Scandinavians, by Dockrell, Clinch and Scott? on Arran Island Europeans, by Moss and Chase’® on Liberian Negroids and by Foster, Hamilton and Lavelle® on British Cau- casoids. Comparisons between these studies of various ethnic groups are, however, not entirely reliable due mainly to the use of varying measure- ment techniques and datum points. In an attempt to overcome these problems the dental arches from a number of different human ethnic groups were measured, and the dimen- sions compared by both univariate and multivariate statistical techniques. From the Departments of Anatomy and Dental Health, University of Bir mingham. MATERIALS AND MeTHops Measurements were made of the dental arches of four major ethnic groups of adult man, viz., Caucasoid (modern British), Mongoloid (North American Indian), Negroid (New Guinean and West African), and Australoid (Australian aboriginal). In addition, the dental arches of Anglo- Saxon (Bidford) and 16-18th century British (Moorfields plague pits) were measured in order to gain insight into possible changes which might have taken place in the British population with the passage of time, Although Goose’ has shown that there has been a reduction in palate size in modern British populations compared with those of more ancient periods, there are little data concerning the over-all size and shape of the dental arches. The modern British dental arches were measured from study models d rived from alginate base hydrocol impressions. They were taken from equal numbers of male and female Caucasoid patients attending for routine dental treatment, within a twenty-mile radius of Birmingham. The dental arches from the remaining popu- lation samples were measured directly from dried skulls. Investigation, how- ever, revealed that there: was no statis- tically significant difference between the dimensions measured on hydrocolloid study models and on dried skulls (P>O.2 from analysis of variance) Using the criteria listed by Hrdlicka™, each sample of dried skulls was assessed to comprise equal numbers of males and females, the sexing being checked by three independent observers. living 293aa The criteria for the selection of the dental arches for measurement were: a) an intact dental arch with a full complement of teeth with the exception of the third molars, b) a normal anteroposterior relation ship between the maxillary and mandi- bular arches, c) no marked dental imbric irregularity, d) no marked approximal tooth at- trition. The number of individuals within each population sample is shown in Table 1. In view of these stringent criteria the number of dental arches measured from any one population sample was limited. Nevertheless, they were applied in order to reduce to a minimum the variation within each sample, For instance, preliminary trials showed that if measurements were esti- mated from tooth sockets, rather than teeth in situ, then the error of the measurement technique increased quite considerably. ion or Dental arch width The following dimensions of the maxillary and mandibular dental arches were measured using dial calipers. ‘The dimensions of dental arch width were measured as the average of the distances between the most buccal and lingual convexities of corresponding tecth on each side of the dental arch in the case of molars and premolars. In the case of the dimensions of arch width between the incisors and canines, the average of the distances between the most mesial and distal surfaces of the corresponding teeth on each side of the dental arch was determined. Thus, the dimensions of maxillary and man- dibular arch width measured were 7-7; 6-6; 5 32-2; and 1-1 Dental arch length (direct) The dimensions of dental arch length (direct) were measured as the mini- Lavelle et al October 1971 mum distances between the centres of adjacent tecth on the left side of the dental arch. Thus, the dimensions measured were 7-6; 6-5; 5-4; 4-3; 3-! and 2-1, for both the maxillary and mandibular dental arches. Dental arch length (oblique) ‘The dimensions of dental arch length (oblique) were measured between the st_mesial aspects of anterior teeth and the most distal aspects of posterior teeth, in cach case on the left side of the maxillary and mandibular dental arches. The dimensions measured were 1-3; 1-6; and 3.6. As a test of accuracy the dimensions of five sets of male and five sets of female study models from the modern British population sample, along with five sets of maxillary and mandibular dental arches from each of the other population samples, measured five times at daily intervals. The mean error of the measurement technique was of the order of two per cent, and from analysis of variance, the variation within population samples proved sta- listically insignificant compared with that between the different population samples (P>O.2). were STATISTICAL ANALYSIS. As an initial assessment the mean arch dimensions for the various popu- lation samples were compared by means of ‘t’ tests. In addition, nonparametrical statistical techniques (concordance co- efficients) were employed to examine the over-all pattern of the arch dimen- sions in the various samples. The over- all paticrn of contrasts between the dental arches of the different popula- tion samples was also examined by principal coordinate analysis. This is a multivariate technique based on the Q-technique of Gower*, Such a tech- nique not only permits all the arch dimensions to be grouped together, i-e., considering the arch as a unit ratherVol. 41, No. 4 Dental Arches 295 Yeon Dental Arch pinenst Asan, We Diseneton x wlan 7-7 95.8 2.26 52.5 0.82 55.3 0675 5543 0142 58.4 0.76 5341 0464 66 orm a.39 brs on78 5018 0185 WB. 01m 55.8 0161 gc? 0.83 55 Agi aloo 43 0033 Bly og tase ontd aecz 2k wey Ons2 CR told one 382 0065 $3.8 013s 3508 ovk n2ag 1.85 ct Lok 33 tile 0138 35.4 0.75 3u.7 0.79 W3u2 0154 39.0 0182 95.7 O-14 39-9 0.97 22 W8lu Gly ably 0132 16.6 0183 2306 108 1913 0.29 27. 0.83 21.0 2.36 Xa “sla aire solo olay “sis.0r%@ g.20.73 8.3019 9.30.08 6.30.77 tenes 7-1 Ee 1215 0.88 12,8 0.29 12.20.82 21,5 0.71 10.7 0,38 10.6 0.38 21.0 0.38 5 es = 5-5 9.3 OoH1 B45 0658 941 0643 942 0649 9.2 0.27 7-4 0,62 8.6 0.61 : a : Th as oan 6.20.5 6.60.73 1.70.57 650.22 1.60.52 165 0693 5 44 3 53 Bis out 6.7053 TAO. 7.90.59 TLE 0.2 6.9 04MM 7.8 0.67 x5 22 stots 6,80.39 6.00. 6.90.57 5.50.26 6.6 0.85 5.3 0.48 1D 2.80.89 290.39 s.u0.s7 400.5 2.60.20 3.20.33 2.90.57 HE psrocsy 3718 0163 3819 0159 36.0 0153 3915 0120 45.0 0147 96.9 0.82 Y5 able tila 223 010 20c7 0198 Ble 0156 22.0 O14} 21.9 0.56 47-7 2.16 36 Salo 0136 3ela oul 5019 0.05 3917 0199 28.9 0,38 3210 0.54 3303 1025 iain 1-7 47.8 0.57 W9.2 0,69 48,7 0.85 48,7 0.58 MB,8 0.07 4.5 0.54 47.8 0.66 Ge Mesa over a7es oct N7c0 0135 BBL 0195 4513 0,64 AUG 0.57 M5.1 2.88 55 $87 2:83 36.6 LIT fee 0150 35.3 2.35 3618 OLD BTUT Lak 3606 0.86 SE 35.b oso 18 0103 aur7 ovr 3219 0166 3218 0133 3-5 1.82 32.3 0.6. 35 beip 0.85 zo.2 0.85 814 0180. 28.7 0155 2510 0131 27.2 0.53 26.5 1.18 22 elk gh ans oct ipsa ovst ase 0.68 ur7 0.32 15.9 0.57 15.0 2.27 Ta “ely aii “biz 0180 56.0163 a.7 0.67 5L.O_B 5.9 .0:19 6.0 0.67 Length mW EE sso 944 0.62 9.50031 9.30.38 10.7 0.39 10.6 0.40 8.6 0,58 é 5 55 BT 0NB 8.60.58 9.40189 8.9 0.69 8.00.52 9.00.59 7.00.19 i be q Wh 6B OHS 74H 0661 7.00652 643.0639 7.2 0.23 769.0655 6.1 0.63 3 ‘ z 53 1160016 12 OWNS 7.20.38 1.9059 668 0.29 Gat OLS 6.7 0.76 2 3-3 i 22 440.0653 HH 0.33 442.059 H9O.MT 450.30 4.80.49 567 0,79 TT 0.90.35 1.20.59 160.38 1.20.25 120.21 0.90.87 0.90.02 LE 30.8 0087 39.8 0155 38r4 2cA3 3900 OLNT 3903 O1tM 38-7 OvT2 38.5 0.29 X53 aela Sli aga ove ans8 0.63 18.8 0049 7A 0137 26.6 1546 27.5 2.28 Se SBls outa 3eio 018 ech orn 36.7 2A 3:5 0-73 3H.2 012 36.0 2.39 to. tn eanpie 20 20 20 20 20 20 « x= nean aneh dimension (nas): £.4, = standard deviation, ‘uste. « Australian aborigtne; N.Ouin. = New Guinea; W.Afrte, = West Afstea: Hong. = Nongelosa: noort. » Moorfields; K.Sax. = Anglo-saxon; W.mid, = Vest idiande, TABLE I296 than a series of discrete parameters as in univariate statistical techniques, but also serves to separate maximally the constituent groups. Using this tech- nique, the dimensions of (a) the max- illary and mandibular arches combined and (b) the maxillary arches only were compared. Thus, this analysis served to examine the size and shape of the dental arches from the various popu- lation samples, In order to compare the shapes of the dental arches only, rather than both size and shape, each dental arch di- mension was standardized according to the area of (a) the maxillary and (b) the mandibular dental arch. The areas of the dental arches were computed from the area enclosed by the datum points. Using the standardized arch dimen- sions, the over-all pattern of contrasts between the dental arches of the different population samples was amined utilizing principal coordinate analysis on (a) the maxillary and mandibular arch dimensions combined and standardized according to both the areas of the maxillary and mandibular arches, (b) the maxillary arch dimen- sions standardized according to both the areas of the maxillary and mandi- ular arches, (c) the mandibular arch dimensions standardized according to the areas of both the maxillary and mandibular arches, (d) the maxillary arch dimensions standardized according to the area of the maxillary arch and (e) the mandibular arch dimensions standardized according to the area of the mandibular arch. Resutrs Mean arch dimensions The mean arch dimensions along with their standard deviations are listed in Table 1. The general impression emerged (from univariate statistical techniques, ic., ‘t tests) of there being no consistent trend of the dental arch Lavelle ct al October 1971 dimensions from one population sample being greater than those from another. This feature was confirmed from com- putation of concordance coefficients fon ranked mean arch dimensions which were all statistically insignificant (P>O.2). Principal coordinate analysis In general, a similar pattern of con tasts emerged from examination of the principal coordinates for the first two axes of the maxillary and mandibular arch dimensions combined or considered separately, regardless of whether in fact the actual dimensions (Fig. 1) or stan- darized dimensions (Fig. 2) were con- sidered. This therefore pointed to the fact that the over-all pattern of con- trasts for dental arch size and shape is similar to that for dental arch shape only. Thus, from consideration of the first two canonical axes for either the actual or standardized arch dimensions, the dental arches of Australoids, Mon- goloids and modem Caucasoids tended to be clustered together as did those of the two samples of Negroids. The two samples of ancient Caucasoids, i.e, Anglo-Saxon and Moorfields, however, tended to be separated one from another, and also from modern Cau casoids. ‘The general impression of the separ- ation of the dental arches from the various population samples was con- firmed from the generalized “distance matrix (D®) Discussion In interpreting the present results, it is necessary to bear in mind certain factors. relating to the population samples used. The samples were fairly small and the criteria for selection were very stringent. Inevitably, therefore, the selection of the dental arches was not made on a random basis, The modern British group was selected on the basis of there being a normal anteroposteriorVol. 41, No. 4 Dental Arches 297 Fig, 1 Principal coordinates and their 90% confidence limits of the first two axes for the maxillary and mandibular arch dimensions combined for various population samples, (Modern Caucasoid sample segregated into male and female, whereas in all the remaining samples, male and female combined). Aus, = Australoid; Mon. = Mongo- loid; Caue.M. = modern Caticasoid male; Caue. F, = modern Caucasoid female; W. Afr. = West African; N.G. = New Guinean; AS. Anglo-Saxon; and Moor. = Moorfield. relationship between the dental arches and no crowding of the tecth. It is likely that these criteria would apply to less than fifty per cent of the total British Caucasoid population, Further- more, although the samples have been chosen to represent various ethnic groups, there are within any major ethnic groups numerous subgroups which may show differences from each other for dental arch measurements*. In addition, the definition of different ethnic groups is not always consistent; for example, some anthropologists con- sider individuals from New Guinea to be Australoids rather than Negroids. Within these limitations some interest- ing features arise from the present study. Fig, 2. Principal coordinates and their 90% ‘confidence limits of the first two axes for the maxillary and mandibular arch dimensions combined and standard- ized according to the areas of the maxil- lary and mandibular arches for various population samples. (Modern Caucasoid sample segregated into male and female, eombined in the remaining samples). The two Negroid subgroups showed ob- vious close resemblance to each other and to a lesser extent, there were sim- ilarities between the Australoids, Mon- goloids and modern Caucasoids for the size and shape of the dental arch. The differences between the modem British on the one hand and the Anglo-Saxon and Moorfields samples on the other were of special interest. It is conceivable that such differences in dental arch size and shape might have resulted from ethnic differences, the modern British having been derived from a much greater mixture of populations than did the Anglo-Saxon and Moorfields popu- lation samples. In contrast, such differ- ences may have been the result of environmental factors, e.g., nutrition, function, etc. In general, the main differences in the dental arch dimensions were in the298 measurements of arch length. As tooth dimensions play a greater part in dental arch length than width in the un- crowded arch, variations in tooth dimensions between the various popu- lation samples might have been respon- sible for some of the differences which were found. The size and shape of the dental arches is governed by several factors including the size and shape of the jaws and the influence of the oral mus culature on the position of the teeth. In view of the separation between the various population samples derived from the present results, it is likely that, although environmental factors play a part, genetic factors appear to be im- portant in determining arch size and shape, although this is contrary to the findings of Bowden and Goose*. Indeed, arch length was the arch parameter that accounted mainly for the group- ings of the population samples. ‘These dimensions essentially reflect variation in mesiodistal tooth diameters. But in view of the stringent criteria for selec- tion, these dimensions were not affected by attrition. Lundstrom", however, has illustrated that there is greater vari ability in dental arch dimensions be- tween fratemal than identical Thus there are two features to emerge from this study a) quite apart from individual vari- ations, there appear to be some basic differences in dental arch size and shape between different population samples; b) by the use of multivariate rather than univariate statistical tech- niques, it is possible to compare the complete dental arch rather than_ individual with another. twins. Summary In order to compare the size and shape of the dental arches in different ethnic groups, measurements were made Lavelle et al parameters one October 1971 of adult dental arches from four of the major ethnic groups of man. The groups examined were Caucasoid (modern British), Mongoloid (North American Indian), Negroid (New Guinean and West African) and Aus- traloid (Australian aboriginal). In ad- dition, the dental arches of Anglo- Saxon and 16th-18th century British skulls were measured ‘The measurements were subjected to univariate and multivariate statistical analyses using (a) raw dimensions and (b) dimensions of the dental arches standardized according to the areas of the maxillary and mandibular dental arches. There was no consistent trend of the dental arch dimensions from one popu- lation sample being greater than those from another. The multivariate ana- lysis showed that, as far as the form of the dental arches was concerned, the Australoids, Mongoloids and mod- em Caucasoids tended to be grouped together, as did the two samples of Negroids and the two samples of more ancient Caucasoids. There was con- siderable separation between each of these three groups, notably between the ancient and the modern Caucasoids. Dept. of Oral Path Univ. of Birmingham Birmingham 15, England RerereNces 1. Aitchison, J. Some racial contrasts in teeth ‘and dental arches. Dent, Mag. and Oral Topics, 82: 201-208, 1965. 2, Bowden, D. B, and Goose, D. H. The inheritance of palatal arch width in human families. Arch. Oral Biol. 18: 1293-1295, 1968. 8, Brown, T,, Barrett, M. J. and Dar- roch, J. N, Craniofacial factors in two ‘ethnic groups. Growth 29: 109- 123, 1965. 4, Campbell, T. D. Dentition and palate of the Australian aboriginal (Ade- laide Univ. K. Sheridan Foundation Publication 1.) Adelaide, 1925. 5. Dockrell, R. B., Clinch, L. M. and Scott, J. H. The face, jaws and teethVol. 41, No. 4 10. ML of Arran Island children. Trans. Europ. Orthodont. Soc., pp. 159-220, 1954. Foster, T. D., Hamilton, M. C. and Lavelle, C. L, B. Dentition and dental arch dimensions in British children at the age of 24-3 years. Arch. Oral Biol. 14: 1031-1040, 1969. Goose, D. H. Reduction of palate size in. modern ‘populations. Arch. Oral Biol. 7: 343-350, 1962. Gower, J. C. A Q-technique for the calculation “of canonical variates Biometrika 53: 588-590, 1966. Hiernaux, J. Ethnie differences in growth and development. Bugen. Quart. 16: 12-21, 1968. Holeombe, A. E. and Meredith, H. V. Width of the dental arches at the de- ciduous canines in white children 4 to 8 years of age. Growth 20: 159- 177, i966. Hrdlicka, A. Practical Anthropo etry. Edited by Stewart, T. D. Wis- tar Institute of Anatomy and Biol- ogy, Philadelphia, 1947. Knott, V. B. Size and form of the Dental Arches 13. 14. 16. i. 18, 299 dental arches in children with good occlusion studied longitudinally from age 9 years to late adolescence, Amer. J. Phys, Anthrop. 19: 263-284, 1961. Lundstrom, A. An investigation of 202 pairs of twins regarding funda- mental factors in the aetiology of malocclusion. Trans. Europ. Ortho- dont. Soc. pp. 161-176, 1948. Moorrees, C.F. A. The dentition of the growing child. Cambridge, Har- vard University Press, 1959. . Moorrees, C. F. A. and Reed, R. B. Biometries of crowding and spacing of the teeth in the mandible, Ame J. Phys. Anthrop. 12: TT-88, 1954. Moss, M. L. and Chase, P. S. Mor- phology of Liberian Negro deciduous teeth. “Amer J. Phys. Anthrop, 25: 261-267, 1967. Seipel, C. M. Variations of tooth po- sition. Svensk. Tandl. Tidskrift, 39 Suppl, 1946, Shaw, J. C. M. The teeth, the bony palate ‘and the ‘mandible’ in Bantu races of South Africa. John. Bale, Sons and Danielson, London, 1931.