Dental and Medical Problems

Dent Med Probl
Index Copernicus (ICV 2021) – 132.50
MEiN – 70 pts
CiteScore (2021) – 2.0
JCI (2021) – 0.5
Average rejection rate (2022) – 79.69%
ISSN 1644-387X (print)
ISSN 2300-9020 (online)
Periodicity – quarterly

Download PDF

Dental and Medical Problems

2015, vol. 52, nr 3, July-September, p. 336–340

Publication type: review article

Language: English

Creative Commons BY-NC-ND 3.0 Open Access

Intercanine Width – Review of the Literature

Szerokość międzykłowa – przegląd piśmiennictwa

Aleksandra Adamek1,A,B,C,D, Liwia Minch2,A,E,F, Beata Kawala2,E,F

1 Private Practice, Wrocław, Poland

2 Department of Maxillofacial Orthopedics and Orthodontics, Wroclaw Medical University, Wrocław, Poland


Correct diagnosis and a detailed orthodontic treatment plan are responsible for therapeutic success. One of the most important assessed parameters with a strong influence on the orthodontic treatment plan is intercanine width. This parameter is mostly defined as a distance between cusp tip points of the right and left canines. All dental arch dimensions, including intercanine width, are dynamic values and change significantly with the development of individuals. The distance between canines tends to increase with the greatest changes taking place during the eruption of incisors, until complete permanent dentition or, according to some other authors, till the eruption of permanent canines and first premolars. The parameters of dental arch never become stable. These findings suggest that, though age-related changes occur after adolescence at a significantly slower rate and begin inverse, they take place during the entirety of adult life. It is also well proven that the distance between canines depends not only on patient’s age. Its value is also strongly affected by gender, ethnicity, and whether the individual dental arch shape. Shape and dimensions of dental arches achieved during the treatment process are one of the most important aspects of treatment. Every change of the width or the lower dental arch form generates a tendency to return toward its pretreatment conditions and a malocclusion relapse occurring. The maintenance of original, unchanged intercanine and intermolar width is therefore critical to the stability of orthodontic treatment.

Key words

relapse, dental arch, canines, malocclusion

Słowa kluczowe

nawrót wady, łuk zębowy, kły, wada zgryzu

References (31)

  1. Jedlińska A.: The comparison analysis of the line measurements between plaster and virtual orthodontic 3D models. Ann. Acad. Med. Stet. 2008, 54, 2, 106–113 [in Polish].
  2. De la Cruz A., Sampson P., Little R.M., Artun J., Shapiro P.A.: Long-term changes in arch form after orthodontic treatment and retention. Am. J. Orthod. Dentofacial Orthop. 1995, 107, 518–530.
  3. Heiser W., Richter M., Niederwanger A., Neunteufel N., Kulmer S.: Association of the canine guidance angle with maxillary and mandibular intercanine widths and anterior alignment relapse: Extraction vs nonextraction treatment. Am. J. Orthod. Dentofacial Orthop. 2008, 133, 669–680.
  4. Paulino V., Paredes V., Cibrian R., Gandia J.L : Dental arch changes from adolescence to adulthood in a Spanish population: A cross-sectional study. Med. Oral Patol. Oral Cir. Bucal. 2011, 16, 607–613.
  5. Gardner S.D., Chaconas S.J.: Posttreatment and postretention changes following orthodontic therapy. Angle Orthod. 1976, 46, 151–161.
  6. Dager M.M., McNamara J.A., Baccetti T., Franchi L.: Aging in the craniofacial complex. Angle Orthod. 2008, 78, 440–444.
  7. Bishara S.E., Jakobsen J.R., Treder J., Nowak A.: Arch length changes from 6 weeks to 45 years. Angle Orthod. 1998, 68, 69–74.
  8. Bishara S.E., Treder J.E., Damon P., Olsen M.: Changes in the dental arches and dentition between 25 and 45 years of age. Angle Orthod. 1996, 66, 417–422.
  9. O’Neill J.: Long-term stability after orthodontic treatment remains inconclusive. Evid. Based Dent. 2007, 8, 81–82.
  10. Knott V.B.: Longitudinal study of dental arch widths at four stages of dentition. Angle Orthod. 1972, 42, 387–394.
  11. Henrikson J., Persson M., Thilander B.: Long-term stability of dental arch form in normal occlusion from 13 to 31 years of age. Eur. J. Orthod. 2001, 23, 51–61.
  12. Moorrees C.F., Chadha J.M.: Available space for the incisors during dental development – a growth study based on physiologic age. Angle Orthod. 1965, 35, 12–22.
  13. Barrow G.V., White J.R.: Developmental changes of the maxillary and mandibular dental arches. Angle Orthod. 1952, 22, 41–46.
  14. Moorrees C.F.A.: The dentition of the growing child: a longitudinal study of dental development between 3 and 18 years of age. Cambridge: Harvard University Press; 1959. pp. 87–110.
  15. Krawczyk K., Śmiech-Słomkowska G.: Dental crowding – review of literature. J. Stoma. 2009, 62, 922–928 [in Polish].
  16. Ahn J.S., Park M.S., Cha H.S., Song H.C., Park Y.S.: Three-dimensional interpretation of intercanine width change in children: A 9-year longitudinal study. Am. J. Orthod. Dentofacial Orthop. 2012, 142, 323–332.
  17. Esan T.A., Oziegbe O.E., Onapokya H.O.: Facial approximation: evaluation of dental and facial proportions with height. Afr. Health Sci. 2012, 12, 63–68.
  18. Rai R.: Correlation of nasal width to inter-canine distance in various arch forms. J. Indian Prosthodont. Soc. 2010, 10, 123–127.
  19. Riedel R.A.: A review of the retention problem. Angle Orthod. 1960, 30, 179–194.
  20. Johnson K.C.: Cases six years postretention. Angle Orthod. 1977, 47, 210–221.
  21. Strang R.H.W.: The fallacy of denture expansion as a treatment procedure. Angle Orthod. 1949, 19, 12–17.
  22. Walter D.C.: Changes in the form and dimension of dental arches resulting from orthodontic treatment. Angle Orthod. 1953, 23, 3–18.
  23. Walter D.C.: Comparative changes in mandibular canine and first molar widths. Angle Orthod. 1962, 32, 232–240.
  24. Steadman S.R.: Changes of intermolar and intercuspid distance following orthodontic treatment. Angle Orthod. 1961, 31, 207–215.
  25. Plaskacz J., Rybka B., Antoszewska-Smith J.: Procedures in the retention phase of orthodontic treatment – a review of the literature and the authors’ own observations. Clinical Orthod. 2014, 2, 60–69 [in Polish].
  26. Kim E., Gianelly A.A.: Extraction vs nonextraction: arch widths and smile esthetics. Angle Orthod. 2003, 73, 354–358.
  27. Ormiston J.P., Huang G.J., Little R.M., Decker J.D., Seuk G.D.: Retrospective analysis of long-term stable and unstable orthodontic treatment outcomes. Am. J. Orthod. Dentofacial Orthop. 2005, 128, 568–574.
  28. Maltagliati L.A., Myiahira Y.I., Fattori L., Filho L.C., Cardoso M.: Transversal changes in dental arches from non-extraction treatment with self ligating brackets. Dental Press J. Orthod. 2013, 18, 3, 39–45.
  29. Burke S.P., Silveira A.M., Goldsmith L.J., Yancey J.M., Van Stewart A., Scarfe W.C.: A meta-analysis of mandibular intercanine width in treatment and postretention. Angle Orthod. 1998, 68, 53–60.
  30. Tecco S., Tetè S., Perillo L., Chimenti C., Festa F.: Maxillary arch width changes during orthodontic treatment with fixed self-ligating and traditional straight-wire appliances. World J. Orthod. 2009, 10, 290–294.
  31. Lang G., Alfter G., Göz G., Lang G.H.: Retention and stability – taking various treatment parameters into account. J. Orofac. Orthop. 2002, 63, 26–41.