Evidence map›Paper›PMID 41460340›Full record

ArticleJournal of orofacial orthopedics = Fortschritte der Kieferorthopadie : Organ/official journal Deutsche Gesellschaft fur Kieferorthopadie2025

42° as a reference for modern orthodontic arch forms-a mathematical analysis of the Bonwill and Hawley methods.

Thomas Stamm, Jonas Q Schmid, Björn Ludwig, Ariane Hohoff, Claudius Middelberg, Moritz Kanemeier

Abstract read
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

Article in Journal of orofacial orthopedics = Fortschritte der Kieferorthopadie : Organ/official journal Deutsche Gesellschaft fur Kieferorthopadie, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
0citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

0 citing papers in PubMed.

No citing paper in PubMed yet.

4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

6 authors.

Thomas StammDepartment of Orthodontics, University of Münster, Münster, Germany.
Jonas Q SchmidDepartment of Orthodontics, University of Münster, Münster, Germany. jonasquirin.schmid@ukmuenster.de.
Björn LudwigDepartment of Orthodontics, University of Homburg/Saar, Homburg, Germany.
Ariane HohoffDepartment of Orthodontics, University of Münster, Münster, Germany.
Claudius MiddelbergDepartment of Orthodontics, University of Münster, Münster, Germany.
Moritz KanemeierDepartment of Orthodontics, University of Münster, Münster, Germany.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

purposeTo date, no consensus exists on an optimal orthodontic arch form. The aim of this study was to mathematically analyze and simplify the geometric constructions of the Bonwill and Hawley arch forms.

methodsThe original constructions by Bonwill and Hawley were systematically reconstructed and mathematically analyzed. The Hawley method was translated into a simplified clinical application and compared with current arch form studies.

resultsThe Bonwill method produced a 49° angle between the posterior segments, the Hawley method produced a consistent 42° angle. The Bonwill method used a fixed 35 mm width for lower incisors and canines, whereas Hawley accommodated individual widths. Consequently, Bonwill's posterior angle varied with individual cases, whereas Hawley's angle remained constant. The 42° Hawley angle closely matched empirical data from recent studies on untreated mandibular arch forms.

conclusionThe Hawley method produces a consistent 42° posterior segment angle, regardless of tooth width. This angle aligns with natural mandibular arch forms and offers a simple, individualized reference for analog or digital orthodontic setups.

Indexed as

Analog and digital orthodontic setupsMandibular arch formOptimal occlusionOrthodontic treatment planningSymmetry

Identifiers

PMID41460340

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.