[Skip to Content]
Access to paid content on this site is currently suspended due to excessive activity being detected from your IP address Please contact the publisher to request reinstatement.
[Skip to Content Landing]
December 31, 1898


JAMA. 1898;XXXI(27):1564-1566. doi:10.1001/jama.1898.92450270016001f

Having in the last two decades given much attention to researches on the etiology of the types of faces of most nationalities, I propose to present the causes of irregularities of the dental arch in a concise, practical manner. In studying the etiology of irregularities of the dental arch, I shall discuss the merits and demerits of some of the later theories, including those as to the alleged normal dental arch. Two misleading classifications of what constitutes normal dental arches have been advanced by able practitioners of dentistry.

``The American System of Dentistry," Vol. ii, page 1030, published in 1887, contains an article entitled ``Dental and Facial Types," in which the author, after discussing temperaments, attempts to show that certain forms of dental arches (which he calls types) are characteristic of different temperaments. Thus, ``the arch of the bilious temperament from cuspid to cuspid is almost flat, the lines backward