An Analysis into Age Changes of the Human

Dental Arch by a Multivariate Technique

C. L. B. LAVELLE, R. M. FLINN, T. D. FOSTER AND
M. C. HAMILTON
Departments of A n a t o m y and Dental Health, University of Birmingham,
B i r m i n g h a m 15, England

ABSTRACT The dimensions of the maxillary and mandibular dental arches were
measured from 280 subjects aged between 3 and 15 years in a cross-sectional study.
The growth changes were examined by means of canonical analysis, a multivariate
technique. This technique enabled the dental arches to be treated as biological units,
rather than a series of discrete parameters, as is possible using univariate techniques.
The results showed that the size and shape of the dental arches changed maximally
between the periods 5-7 and 11-13 years of age, These periods correspond to the
major phases of permanent tooth eruption.

Size and shape are fundamental con-
cepts in the analysis of age changes in the
human dental arch. The shape of the
dental arch is affected by a multitude of
factors (Scott, ' 5 7 ) , including the basal
dental arches (jaws), inclination of the
teeth, especially the incisors, arch size and
the resultant of all forces, especially from
the oral and facial musculature. Further-
more, although there is some evidence that
the size of the primary dentition is related
to that of the primary dental arch (Foster,
Hamilton and Lavelle, '69), there seems to
be no significant correlation between the
size of the permanent dentition and dental
arch (Moorrees and Reed, '54; Lundstrom,
'55).
Although many stGdies have been made
relating to age changes in the human den-
tal arch, the majority have been based up-
on comparisons between single variates
measured at different ages (Lewis and
Lehmann, '29; Chapman, '35; Goldstein
and Stanton, '35; Cohen, '40; Woods, '50;
Clinch, '51; Sillman, '51; Barrow and
White, '52; Dockrell, Clinch and Scott, '54;
Knott, '61; Lavelle and Foster, '69). Such
comparisons, however, are of limited value,
since they fail to take into account the pos-
sibility of one variate being correlated with
another, and therefore not independent.
For instance, arch length between the cen-
tral incisors and canines may be correlated
with that between the central incisors and
first permanent molars, the two measure-
ments being partly dependent upon one
another. Furthermore, univariate statisti-
cal techniques permit only one or two var-
iates to be considered at any one time, so
that the dental arch is considered as a col-
lection of discrete parameters, rather than
a biological unit.
Thus, it appears that multivariate statis-
tical techniques would be more appropriate
for the examination of age changes of the
human dental arch. Such techniques would
enable the dental arch to be considered as
a biological unit. For instance, the size and
shape of a dental arch may be represented
by series of different measurements taken
on the arch. One way of representing the
arch is as a single point located in a multi-
dimensional space. The coordinates of this
point are the actual values of each of the
measurements, and the many dimensions
are the many different measurements. In
such a system, a number of dental arches
from one age group correspond to a num-
ber of points lying close together within the
multidimensional space. If the same mea-
surements are determined on the dental
arches from a different age group, then
another series of points will be produced
lying in a similar or different region of the
multidimensional space. Hence, by exam-
ining the relationship between one series
of points and another, for example the
Euclidean distance between the centroids
of the clusters of points, i t is possible to
compare the size and shape of the dental
arches from two different age groups.

AM. J. P H Y s . ANTHROP.,33: 403-412. 403

404 LAVELLE, FLINN, FOSTER AND HAMILTON

Among the methods which are avail- of previous orthodontic treatment; (a) a
able for treating biological data in this normal antero-posterior molar relationship
way is canonical analysis. This is just between the maxillary and mandibular
one of the suitable multivariate statistical dental arches; ( e ) casts in a sufficiently
techniques, which have been reviewed by accurate condition to permit their detailed
Oxnard (’68). It is based essentially upon measurement.
the generalized distance statistic of Ma- In view of these stringent criteria, this
halanobis ( ’ 3 6 ) , which has been devel- was not based upon random sampling.
oped, in the main, by Rao (’52). The orig-
inal method for the calculation of the Measurements
canonical variates was termed the R-tech- The dimensions of the dental arches
nique, and this has since been supplanted were measured using dial calipers.
by the &-technique of Gower (’66), which
is based upon the association matrix ( a ) Dimensions of arch width ( f i g . 1 )
formed from comparison of all pairs of The dimensions of dental arch width
individuals. Furthermore, Ashton, Healey were measured between the centers of
and Lipton (’57) have suggested that the corresponding teeth on each side of the
majority of the discrimination between dental arch.
groups becomes apparent on the first two These dimensions of
M2-M2
canonical axes, provided ali but two of the M1-M1 arch width were mea-
roots of the determinantal equation are (dm21PmZ-Pm2(dmZ) sured as the distance be-
small in magnitude. ( d m l jPml-Pml(dm1 j tween the most buccal
The present investigation was therefore convexities of the teeth
undertaken to examine the age changes of + the distance between
the most lingual convex-
the human dental arch using canonical ities, divided by 2.
analysis. This served not only to treat the (dc)C-C( dc) This dimension of arch
arch as a biological unit, but also maxi- width was measured as
the distance between the
mally separated the dental arches between tips of the canine teeth.
the various age groups. (di2)1212( di2) These dimensions of
( d i l )I1-Il(di1) arch width were mea-
MATERIALS AND METHODS sured as the distance be-
tween the most distal
Dental casts surfaces of the tooth
The basis of this investigation was the crowns + the distance
between the most mesial
measurement of dental casts made from surfaces of the crowns,
alginate base hydrocolloid impressions. It divided by 2.
was a cross-sectional study based upon a By using these dimensions of dental arch
total of 280 sets of maxillary and mandib-
width, it was hoped to minimize the varia-
ular casts from Caucasoid British patients tion arising from changes in tooth position
living within a 20 mile radius of Birming-
(e.g., arising from mesial drift) or from
ham. This total comprised groups of 20 tooth rotation.
male and 20 female sets of casts taken
from 3 , 5, 7, 9, 11, 13, and 15 year old
age groups. The casts were all taken from
patients attmding for routine dental treat-
ment, all of whom were of “normal” stat-
ure, and had no history of previous serious
illness.
The criteria for the selection of the casts
were: -
( a ) a full complement of teeth for the
respective age group, any with missing or
unerupted teeth being rejected (with the
exception of the third molar); ( b ) little or
no dental irregularity or imbrication, espe-
cially in the anterior region; ( c ) no history Fig. 1 Dimensions of dental arch width.
 DENTAL ARCH GROWTH
( b ) Dimensions of arch length
(fig. 2 )
The dimensions of arch length were
measured as the minimum distance be-
tween the lines drawn between the centers
of corresponding teeth on each side of the
dental arch. The dimensions were: -
M2 I M2; M1 I M I ;
Ml M1 (dm2)Pm2 Pm2(dm2)
(dm2)Pm2 I Pm2(dm2);
(dm1)Pml P m l ( d m l )
(dm1)Pml I P m l ( d m 1 ) ;
(dc)C C(dc)
(dc)C I C(dc); (di2)IzI IZ(di2)
(di2)12 I2(di2) (di1)Il Il(di1)
These dimensions were measured on the
left sides of the dental arches only.
(c) Dimensions of arch length (chords)
The dimensions of dental arch length
(chords) were measured as the minimum
distances between the teeth on the left side
of the dental arch only (fig. 3).
N, distance between the most mesial aspect of
the central incisor to the most distal aspect of
the canine; 0, distance between the most mesial
aspect of the canine to the most distal aspect of
the first permanent molar; P, distance between
the most mesial aspect of the central incisor to
the most distal aspect of the first permanent
molar.
All the above dimensions were measured
from the maxillary and mandibular casts
of patients within the age range 3-15
years. However, due to the uneruption of
permanent teeth, only a limited number
of dimensions could be recorded for the
earlier age groups. Furthermore, each di-
mension was determined regardless of
fd
Fig. 2 Dimensions of dental arch length.
405
whether, in fact, the teeth were from the
deciduous or permanent dentitions.
Test of technique
To test the accuracy of the measurement
technique, the dimensions of the five male
and five female maxillary and mandibular
dental arches selected at random were
measured five times by three independent
observers. The maximum variation be-
tween the measurements was 2 % , which,
from analysis of variance, proved statisti-
cally nonsignificant (P > 0.2).
Statistical analysis
Initially, the mean dental arch dimen-
sions were computed for both males and
females at each age group, and compared
by means of univariate statistical tech-
niques, i.e., “t” tests.
The overall patterns of contrast between
the dental arches at different age groups
were then examined by means of canonical
analysis. Three canonical analyses were
performed using (a) the dimensions of the
maxillary and mandibular arches com-
bined, (b) the dimensions of the maxillary
arches only and ( c ) the dimensions of the
mandibular arches only. However, due to
the uneruption of permanent teeth at the
earlier age groups, every dental arch di-
mension could not be determined on each
arch. Hence, the separation between the
dental arches of the various age groups
tended to be exaggerated.
These three canonical analyses were sub-
sequently repeated, but using only those
dimensions which could be measured on
all the dental arches regardless of age, i.e.,
N
U
Fig. 3 Dimensions of dental arch length
(chords).
 TABLE 1
Dental arch dimensions
Age group (years)
Dimension 3 5 7 9 11 13 15
x s.d. x s.d. x s.d. x s.d. x s.d. x s.d. x s.d.
Male
Maxilla
Width 5.11 0.201 5.15 0.127
4.44 0.140 4.72 0.114 4.84 0.166 4.92 0.225 4.86 0.166
3.48 0.296 3.50 0.355 3.68 0.166 3.73 0.109 4.12 0.157 4.15 0.214 4.28 0.157
3.39 0.159 3.35 0.201 3.40 0.061 3.57 0.046 3.81 0.228 3.92 0.223 3.89 0.206
3.27 0.153 3.44 0.128 3.49 0.026 3.70 0.039 3.83 0.202 4.05 0.258 4.12 0.228
2.38 0.061 2.43 0.271 2.62 0.065 2.92 0.206 3.15 0.342 3.18 0.210 3.15 0.242
1.99 0.083 1.57 0.179 2.13 0.377 1.99 0.160 2.21 0.263 2.18 0.206 2.19 0.233
Length 0.77 0.171 0.75 0.302
0.76 0.171 0.69 0.228 0.72 0.293 0.68 0.157 0.72 0.315
0.76 0.122 0.86 0.201 0.65 0.201 0.63 0.214 0.70 0.285 0.68 0.228 0.33 0.346
0.63 0.149 0.63 0.219 0.45 0.271 0.61 0.267 0.47 0.228 0.42 0.258 0.44 0.254
0.41 0.140 0.41 0.166 0.31 0.293 0.32 0.293 0.38 0.258 0.35 0.206 0.33 0.206
0.15 0.070 0.11 0.245 0.11 0.254 0.17 0.263 0.25 0.236 0.24 0.271 0.20 0.131
4.94 0.192 5.08 0.254 5.10 0.254 5.10 0.298 5.15 0.245
2.24 0.083 2.16 0.206 2.29 0.342 2.41 0.171 2.63 0.171 2.54 0.382 2.52 0.214
3.29 0.318 3.42 0.192 3.63 0.157 3.48 0.228 3.55 0.245
Mandible
Width 5.21 0.245 5.21 0.228
4.42 0.302 4.71 0.314 4.82 0.087 4.75 0.236 4.83 0.293
2.85 0.122 2.90 0.166 3.19 0.228 3.33 0.166 3.42 0.061 4.24 0.206 4.31 0.302
3.15 0.228 3.28 0.280 3.22 0.285 3.26 0.135 3.67 0.135 4.07 0.302 4.16 0.254
3.17 0.206 3.21 0.271 3.36 0,321 3.47 0.206 3.69 0.122 4.06 0.315 4.15 0.214
1.90 0.214 2.16 0.171 2.23 0.323 2.21 0.214 2.27 0.258 2.23 0.323 2.28 0.140
1.11 0.157 1.12 0.184 1.17 0.106 1.20 0.219 1.17 0.214 1.16 0.228 1.18 0.214
Length 0.75 0.258 0.77 0.214
0.71 0.153 0.70 0.201 0.74 0.359 0.73 0.166 0.74 0.197
0.71 0.140 0.69 0.210 0.76 0.267 0.69 0.197 0.69 0.267 0.67 0.157 0.63 0.323
0.44 0.206 0.46 0.219 0.46 0.285 0.42 0.166 0.47 0.293 0.45 0.206 0.44 0.328
0.32 0.214 0.27 0.201 0.21 0.315 0.28 0.083 0.38 0.219 0.43 0.214 0.43 0.206
0.04 0.008 0.05 0.131 0.05 0.311 0.15 0:035 0.19 0.271 0.13 0.197 0.16 0.214
4.54 0.368 4.67 0.175 4.75 0.017 4.79 0.228 4.78 0.223
1.45 0.070 1.42 0.048 1.69 0.359 1.69 0.323 1.72 0.171 1.77 0.214 1.76 0.245
3.24 0.285 3.40 0.171 3.37 0.122 3.40 0.166 3.42 0.214
 Width 4.90 0.153 5.15 0.044
4.49 0.288 4.70 0.184 4.79 0.118 4.82 0.228 4.80 0.201
3.51 0.140 3.56 0.162 3.75 0.157 3.84 0.166 3.86 0.166 4.16 0.245 4.31 0.166
3.65 0.179 3.44 0.175 3.50 0.214 3.50 0.171 3.71 0.161 3.77 0.206 3.82 0.228
3.32 0.197 3.38 0.206 3.40 0.162 3.55 0.228 3.80 0.083 3.86 0.214 3.92 0.258
2.39 0.206 2.46 0.210 2.67 0.157 2.83 0.245 3.10 0.092 3.12 0.228 3.18 0.201
1.52 0.166 1.56 0.171 1.74 0.105 1.79 0.206 1.77 0.200 1.81 0.201 1.79 0.166
Length 0.77 0.166 0.76 0.157
0.76 0.135 0.77 0.166 0.70 0.083 0.71 0.135 0.70 0.206
0.69 0.245 0.71 0.228 0.67 0.206 0.68 0.258 0.69 0.087 0.72 0.201 0.68 0.214
0.41 0.047 0.44 0.245 0.44 0.166 0.46 0.293 0.47 0.061 0.44 0.192 0.41 0.228
0.26 0.166 0.23 0.171 0.25 0.171 0.32 0.184 0.26 0.083 0.28 0.166 0.25 0.263
0.14 0.140 0.12 0.166 0.13 0.131 0.21 0.166 0.22 0.122 0.16 0.122 0.18 0.206
4.91 0.114 5.14 0.206 5.18 0.135 5.13 0.285 5.11 0.048
1.61 0.201 1.91 0.206 2.17 0.236 2.27 0.166 2.33 0.201 2.32 0.298 2.28 0.035
3.20 0.293 3.48 0.131 3.46 0.166 3.69 0.131 3.69 0.070
Mandible 2
Width 5.16 0.206
4.31 0.052 4.58 0.127 4.69 0.140 4.77 0.106 5.14
4.68 0.184
0.171 E
3.44 0.256 3.47 0.228 3.55 0.254 3.59 0.206 4.22 0.129 4.13 0.140 4.30 0.122 *
3.24 0.175 3.31 0.166 3.37 0.171 3.52 0.166 3.76 0.192 3.85 0.258 4.11 0.135
3.17 0.157 3.21 0.293 3.36 0.293 3.39 0.179 3.46 0.171 3.84 0.254 3.87 0.201 E
1.83 0.171 2.16 0.228 2.12 0.302 2.16 0.179 2.24 0.166 2.19 0.267 2.19 0.214 t,
1.07 0.184 1.12 0.285 1.19 0.175 1.17 0.155 1.19 0.245 1.21 0.206 1.21 0.140
Length 0.78 0.214 0.78 0.254
T!
0.70 0.140 0.68 0.228m 0.70 0.162 0.75 0.228 0.75 0.254 3
0.72 0.206 0.70 0.166 0.76 0,092 0.62 0.171 0.67 0.166 0.62 0.166 0.71 0.171
0.47 0.166 0.45 0.127 0.41 0.026 0.47 0.179 0.47 0.166 0.44 0.157 0.46 0.087
0.25 0.219 0.27 0.048 0.25 0.061 0.32 0.214 0.27 0.285 0.24 0.175 0.28 0.070
0.05 0.241 0.05 0.026 0.05 0.008 0.14 0.201 0.14 0.298 0.13 0.206 0.13 0.127
4.34 0.171 4.66 0.166 4.66 0.171 4.75 0.245 4.72 0.206
1.40 0.157 1.42 0.166 1.57 0.201 1.72 0.149 1.71 0.175 1.75 0.175 1.77 0.131
3.17 0.179 3.39 0.122 3.63 0.166 3.66 0.214 3.56 0.105
x, mean arch dimension ( c m s ) ; s.d., standard deviation; 20 subjects within each age group.
Abbreviations for arch dimensions:
Width; ( a ) , M2-M2; (b), MI-M1; ( c ) , (dm2)Pm%Prn2(dm2); ( d ) , ( d m l ) Pml-Pml(dm1); ( e ) , (dc)C-C(dc); (f), (di2)12-12(di2); (g), ( d i l ) I l - I l ( d i l ) .
Length; ( h ) , M2-M2; (I), M1-M1: (j), (dm2 )Pm2-Pm2(dm2); ( k ) , ( d m l ) P m l - P m l ( d m l );
M1-M1 (dm2)Pm2-Pm2(dm2) (dm1)Pml-Pml ( d m l ) (dc )C-C( d c )
( l ) , (dc)C-C(dc); ( m ) , (di2)12-12(di2); ( n ) , ( d i 1 ) I l - M l ; (01, ( d i l ) I l - C ( d c ) ; ( p ) , (dc)C-Ml.
(di2)12-12( di2) (di1)Il-11( d i l )
408 LAVELLE, FLINN, FOSTER AND HAMILTON
excluding those which could not be deter-
mined due to the uneruption of the first
and second permanent molar teeth. These
analyses served to examine both the size
and shape of the dental arches from dif-
ferent age groups.
In order to compare dental arch shape
alone, rather than both size and shape
combined, each dental arch dimension was
then standardized according to the area
of ( a ) the maxillary and (b) the mandibu-
lar dental arches. The areas of the maxil-
lary and mandibular dental arches were
estimated by calculating the area enclosed
by the datum points of each arch.
Using the standardized arch dimensions,
the overall patterns contrast between the
dental arches from various age groups
were again examined by canonical analysis
using: -
( a ) both maxillary and mandibular arch
dimensions combined together and stan-
dardized according to the areas of both
the maxillary and mandibular arches;
(b) both the maxillary and mandibular
arch dimensions combined together and
standardized according to the areas of the
maxillary arches; ( c ) both the maxillary
and mandibular arch dimensions com-
bined together and standardized according
to the areas of the mandibular arches;
( d ) the maxillary arch dimensions only
and standardized according to the areas of
the maxillary arches; ( e ) the mandibular
arch dimensions only and standardized ac-
cording to the areas of the mandibular
arches.
Again, due to the uneruption of the per-
manent teeth, there were some dimensions
which could not be measured on the dental
arches from the earlier age groups. This
resulted in exaggerated separation. Hence,
repeat canonical analyses were performed,
but using only those variates which could
be determined on all the arches regardless
of age, i.e., excluding those variates as-
sociated with the first and second perma-
nent molar teeth.
The canonical coordinates for the dental
arches of the different age were then
plotted for the first two axes, using both
the raw arch dimensions and the standard-
ized arch dimensions for males and fe-
males. In addition, the minimum distance
between the coordinates for each age group
were computed from the generalized dis-
tance matrix. This was determined in
order to simplify the interpretation of the
canonical analysis.
RESULTS
From examination of the mean dental
arch dimensions listed in table 1, it was
generally evident that the arch dimensions
in the incisor region mainly increased up
to nine years of age, and up to 11-13 years
of age in the other regions of the arch,
thereafter to remain virtually constant.
However, it was possible to consider only
one or two variates at any one time either
by visual inspection of the data, or from
univariate statistical analysis. In contrast,
by means of canonical analysis, it was POS-
sible to consider the age changes of the
dental arches as a whole.
Using the raw arch dimensions, the first
two canonical axes involving either the
maxillary and mandibular arch dimensions
combined together, or the maxillary and
mandibular arch dimensions considered
separately, showed the greatest separation
occurred between the ages of 5-7 and 11-
13 years of age. In contrast, there was little
separation between the arches of the other
age groups or between those of males and
females. Repeat analyses, except using
only those dimensions which could be de-
termined on all the arches regardless of
age, showed a similar pattern of contrasts
(fig. 4). Thus whereas axis 1 tended to
separate age clusters, axis 2 tended to
separate male and female.
Although from the canonical analysis
of the standardized arch data, excluding
those variates which could not be mea-
sured on each arch regardless of age, the
same general pattern of contrasts was pro-
duced (fig. 5 ) , there was a greater separa-
tion between the ages 5-7 compared with
11-13 years. In addition, the variance of
the standardized arch data as depicted by
the 90% confidence limits, tended to be
less at each age group, compared with that
of the raw arch data. Furthermore, on axis
2, there tended to be reduction in the sep-
aration between the sexes with advancing
age.
The generalized distances between the
various age groups was determined from
the generalized distance matrix, and pro-
 DENTAL ARCH GROWTH
AXIS 2.
3 8 q
I.
Fig. 4 First two canonical axes derived from
the analysis of the maxillary and mandibular
arch dimensions combined (excluding those as-
sociated with the first and second permanent
molars), showing the centroids at each age group
and their 90% confidence limits.
vided an indication (in terms of standard
deviation units) of the separation between
the dental arches of the various age groups.
The generalized distances for the maxil-
lary and mandibular arch dimensions com-
bined between different age groups are
illustrated in figure 6, which suggested
that the spurt of arch growth in females
occurred before that of males. This was
also confirmed from examination of the
generalized distance matrix for the canoni-
cal analyses of the standardized arch di-
mension data.
DISCUSSION
The present investigation was based
upon a cross-sectional study, with the den-
tal arch dimensions being measured re-
gardless of whether in fact the teeth were
from the permanent or deciduous denti-
tions in the various age groups. Hence, the
transition phase between the two dentitions
was included. Clements, Davies-Thomas
and Picket ( ' 5 3 ) , however, noted consid-
erable variation in the timing of perma-
nent tooth eruption. Thus, it is conceivable
409
that variation in tooth eruption times may
have masked some of the age changes in
dental arch dimensions. Furthermore,
exactly homologous points were not mea-
sured in the dental arches from the two
dentitions. Nevertheless, as the aim of this
investigation was to examine the changes
in arch size and shape, rather than to de-
termine absolute arch dimensions, the
present results were considered sufficiently
accurate to warrant overall conclusions.
(Due consideration was also given to the
fact that this investigation was based upon
a heterogeneous rather than homogeneous
population sample.)
In order to examine dental arch shape
only, rather than size and shape combined,
each dental arch dimension was standard-
ized according to the area of the arch. This
was a purely arbitrary decision. An alterna-
tive method would have been to transform
each arch dimension logarithmically, as
suggested by Reyment ('69). This author
AXI: 1
//0
t
13$9
35
158 ..13d
t 25
Fig. 5 First two canonical axes derived from
the analysis of the maxillary and mandibular
arch dimensions combined (excluding those as-
sociated with the first and second permanent
molars) and standardized according to the areas
of both the maxillary and mandibular arches,
showing the centroids at each age group and
their 90% confidence limits.
410 LAVELLE, FLINN, FOSTER AND HAMILTON

this study, it was possible to consider only

R one or two variates at any one time, rather
I\
I \ than visualize the complete dental arch.
I \ Furthermore, the present investigation dis-
I \
I 1
sociated changes in dental arch shape from
dental arch size and shape. This was sig-
nificant, for dental arch shape is essen-
tially dependent upon the direction of
alveolar bone growth - there always being
growth in a vertical direction, whereas a
variable balance exists between growth in
a forward and lateral direction. Dental
arch size, in contrast, is mainly dependent
d u upon the size and disposition of the teeth.
Thus, the present investigation has dem-
onstrated the advantages of multivariate
\
statistical techniques for the analysis of
age changes in the human dental arch. By
using such techniques, it is now possible
to obtain a more accurate comparison be-
‘1 tween dental arch growth from different
population samples.
0 LITERATURE CITED
3 5 7 9 11 13 Ashton, E. H., M. J. R. Healey and S. Lipton
15
1957 The descriptive use of discriminant
Age in years functions in physical anthropology, Proc. Roy.
Fig. 6 Plot of generalized distances (De) SOC.( B ) , 46: 552-572.
between the dental arches at different age groups Barrow, G. V., and J. R. White 1952 Develop-
(generalized distances being in standard devia- mental changes of the maxillary and mandibu-
tion units). The dot between three and five indi- lar dental arches. Angle Orthodont., 22: 4 1 4 6 .
cates the distance between these two years, and Baume, L. J. 1950 Physiology of tooth migra-
so on. Solid dots represent females, open dots tion. J. Dent. Res., 29: 123-127.
males. Chapman, H. 1935 The normal dental arch
and its changes from birth to adult. Brit. Dent.
J., 58: 201-229.
stated that the first canonical axis would Clements, E. H. B., E. Davies-Thomas and K. G.
then discriminate according to size and all Pickett 1953 Time of eruption of permanent
teeth i n British children in 1947-1948. Brit.
the other axes would discriminate accord- Med. J., 1 : 1421-1424.
ing to shape, an exposition which is not Clinch, L. M. 1951 Analysis of serial models
supported by Rao (’52). Nevertheless in between three and eight years of age. Dent.
this growth study it was obviously neces- Rec., 71: 61-72.
J. T. 1990 Growth and development of
sary to attempt to define dental arch shape Cohen, the dental arches in children. J. Amer. Dent.
only, rather than arch size and shape ASSOC.,27: 1250-1260.
combined. Dockrell, R. B., L. M. Clinch and J.’ H. Scott
The results from this investigation, in 1954 Face, jaws and teeth of Aran Island
Children. European Orthodont. SOC. Tr., pp.
general, indicate that both the size and 159-210.
shape of the dental arch change maximally Foster, T. D., M. C. Hamilton and C. L. B. Lavelle
during the periods between 5-7 and 11-13 1969 aentition and dental arch dimensions in
years of age. These two periods correspond British children at the age of 2Vz to 3 years.
to the major phases of permanent tooth Archs. Oral Biol., 14: 1031-1040.
M. S., and F. L. Stanton 1935
eruption, and confirm the findings of Goldstein, Changes in dimensions and form of the dental
Baume ( ’ 5 0 ) , that the eruption of the arches with age, Int. J. Orthodont. Dent. Child.,
teeth has a profound effect on the form of 21: 357-380.
the dental arch. This has been previously Gower, J. C. 1966 A Q-techniaue for the calcu-
lation of canonical dariates.- Biometrika, 53:
indicated in a univariate analvsis of the 588-590.
age changes of the human dental arch Knott, V. B. 1961 Size and form of the dental
(Lavelle and Foster, ’69), except that in arches. Am. J. Phys. Anthrop., 19: 263-284.
 DENTAL ARCH GROWTH
Lavelle, C. L. B., and T. D. Foster 1969 A
cross-sectional study into age changes of the
human dental arch. Archs. Oral Biol., 14: 71-
86.
Lewis, S. J., and I. A. Lehmann 1929 Observa-
tions on growth changes of the teeth and dental
arches. Dent. Cosmos, 71: 480499.
Lundstrom, A. 1955 Variation of tooth size in
the etiology of malocclusion. Amer. J. Ortho-
dont., 41: 872-976.
Mahalanobis, P. C. 1936 On the generalized
distance in statistics. Proc. Natl. Inst. Sci. In-
dia, Pt. A. 12: 49-55.
Moorrees, C. F. A., and R. B. Reed 1954 Bio-
metrics of crowding and spacing of the teeth
in the mandible. Am. J. Phys. Anthrop., 12:
77-88.
41 1
Oxnard, C. E. 1968 Primate evolution-a
method of investigation. Am. J. Phys. Anthrop.,
28: 289-302.
Rao, C. R. 1952 Advanced statistical methods
in biometric research. Wiley, New York.
Reyment, R. A. 1969 A multivariate pdeon-
tological growth problem. Biometrics, 25: 1-4.
Scott, J. H. 1957 The shape of the dental
arches. J. Dent. Res., 36: 996-1003.
Sillman, J. H. 1951 Serial study of good occlu-
sion from birth to twelve years. Amer. J. Ortho-
dont., 37: 481-507.
Woods, G. A. 1950 Changes in width dimen-
sions between certain teeth and facial points
during human growth. Amer. J. Orthodont., 36:
676-700.