OBJECTIVE: To compare (1) arch widths in adults with Class II division 2 (II-2), Class II division 1 (II-1), and Class I normal occlusions, (2) genders, (3) gender dimorphism, (4) differences between maxillary and mandibular arch widths, and to (5) develop adult norms for arch widths. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Subjects were white Americans with no history of orthodontic treatment. Arch width dimensions measured were: intercanine, intermolar, and molar alveolar in both arches. Analysis of variance (ANOVA) and Duncan's test were used to compare groups. RESULTS: Comparison of pooled genders showed the II-2 group had maxillary arch widths significantly smaller than the normal occlusions and significantly larger than the II-1 group. All groups had similar mandibular intercanine and alveolar widths. The II-2 and II-1 groups had similar mandibular intermolar widths, both significantly smaller than normal occlusions. The II-2 group had a maxillary/mandibular intermolar difference significantly smaller than the normal occlusions, and significantly less negative than the II-1 group. Gender comparisons in two of six widths showed normal and II-2 male subjects were similar, and in six of six widths normal and II-2 female subjects were similar; in five of six widths II-2 and II-1 male and female subjects were similar. Gender dimorphism occurred in five of six widths in normal occlusions, four of six widths in II-2, and one of six widths in II-1. CONCLUSIONS: Arch width dimensions of II-2 subjects were intermediate between normal and II-1 occlusions. In both Class II malocclusions, the process that narrows arch widths was more pronounced in male than in female subjects.
OBJECTIVE: To compare (1) arch widths in adults with Class II division 2 (II-2), Class II division 1 (II-1), and Class I normal occlusions, (2) genders, (3) gender dimorphism, (4) differences between maxillary and mandibular arch widths, and to (5) develop adult norms for arch widths. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Subjects were white Americans with no history of orthodontic treatment. Arch width dimensions measured were: intercanine, intermolar, and molar alveolar in both arches. Analysis of variance (ANOVA) and Duncan's test were used to compare groups. RESULTS: Comparison of pooled genders showed the II-2 group had maxillary arch widths significantly smaller than the normal occlusions and significantly larger than the II-1 group. All groups had similar mandibular intercanine and alveolar widths. The II-2 and II-1 groups had similar mandibular intermolar widths, both significantly smaller than normal occlusions. The II-2 group had a maxillary/mandibular intermolar difference significantly smaller than the normal occlusions, and significantly less negative than the II-1 group. Gender comparisons in two of six widths showed normal and II-2 male subjects were similar, and in six of six widths normal and II-2 female subjects were similar; in five of six widths II-2 and II-1 male and female subjects were similar. Gender dimorphism occurred in five of six widths in normal occlusions, four of six widths in II-2, and one of six widths in II-1. CONCLUSIONS: Arch width dimensions of II-2 subjects were intermediate between normal and II-1 occlusions. In both Class II malocclusions, the process that narrows arch widths was more pronounced in male than in female subjects.