For describing the face Ricketts used five angles. These five angles are:
In this study the mean of standardization of each five values of the person was calculated for each gender (by standardization compare the values with the mean according to the standard deviation) The standardized numbers of the facial axis angle, the facial angle, the mandibular bend angle multiplied by (1).So that the dolichfacial pattern would have a mean of standardized number more than (+1), the brachyfacial had a mean of standardized number less than (1) and the mesofacial had a mean of standardized number between (1 and +1).
Facial Index= NMe (height)/ IZD (Bizygomatic breadth) with in average
Facial Index= NMe (height)/ IZD (Bizygomatic breadth) > average.
By standardization the facial index the person that has standardized number more than (+1) would be Leptoprosopic facial type, the person that has standardized number less than (1)would be Euryprosopic facial type and the person that has standardized number between (+1 and 1) would be Mesoprosopic facial type (Cakirer et al, 2001).
Statistical Analysis:
The data recorded in this research were subjected to computerized statistical analysis using both Excel2007, and SPSS version 15 programs
The statistical analysis included
1.Descriptive Statistics (Mean, standard deviation, minimum, maximum) for all facial measurements angles, liner and ratios taken from the (lateral and frontal)digital cephalogram, and also for the maxillary dental arch widths, lengths and ratios for the sample.
ttest” was applied to test the significant differences between the mean of all dimensions of upper dental arches &facial measurements in Male and Female.
2 Standardized number of the five angles (from lateral cephalometric)and ratio of the total anterior facial height/interzygomatic distance (from frontal cephalometric).
3 Standardized number of three ratios(from study models).

Anterior arch length/intercanine distance.

Molarvertical distance/interfirst molar distance.

Total arch length/intersecond molar distance.
RESULTS
Dental Arches:
Description and Comparison between Males and Females:
All the variables of the maxillary dental arch widths and, Ttest was applied to see if there were any differences between males and females. It revealed that the males had larger arch width with a highly significant difference at P < 0.01 in all width dimensions in maxillary arches as illustrated in Table (1) and Figure (6).
for maxillary dental arch lengths. The statistical analysis showed that there were high significant differences between males and females in maxillary vertical distance, all of the vertical measurements showed that males had larger arch length than females with a high significant difference at P < 0.01 Table (2) and Figure (7).
Table (1) Descriptive Statistics for Maxillary Arch Width with Comparisons between the Genders.
Variable

sex

Mean

± SD

Min

Max

ttest

Inter Canine

M

36.19

1.91

32.58

41.18

5.450**

F

34.11

1.73

30.9

38.52

T

34.92

2.06

30.90

41.18

Inter 1st Molar

M

55.96

2.83

49.56

61.7

5.658**

F

52.93

2.31

47.62

59.44

T

54.11

2.92

47.62

61.7

Inter 2^{nd} Molar D

M

60.07

2.74

53.17

64.78

6.293**

F

56.58

2.54

52.34

63.29

T

57.94

3.12

52.34

64.78

NS. : Non Significant at P > 0.05. ** : Significant at P < 0.01. All dimensions in mm
Maxillary dental arch width (mm)
Figure (6) Mean of Maxillary Dental Arch Width for both Genders.
Table (2) Descriptive Statistics for Maxillary Arch Length with Comparison between the Genders.
Variable

Sex

Mean

± S.D

Min.

Max.

tvalue

Anterior Arch Length

M
F
T

8.81
8.31
8.50

0.90
0.83
0.89

6.67
6.56
6.56

10.68
10.35
10.68

2.790**

Molar Vertical D

M
F
T

30.09
28.51
29.13

1.56
1.70
1.81

26.57
24.34
24.34

33.85
33.61
33.85

4.560**

Total Arch Length

M
F
T

44.86
42.37
43.34

1.98
1.83
2.24

40.71
37.53
37.53

48.75
47.31
48.75

6.267**

NS : Non Significant at P > 0.05. ** : Significant at P < 0.01. All dimensions in mm
Figure (7) Mean of Maxillary Dental Arch Length for both Genders.
Arch Form:
Table (3) and Figure (8) showed the average of the three ratios used in the determination of the dental arch forms (Anterior arch length/intercanine distance; molarvertical distance/interfirst molar distance, total arch length/intersecond molar distance) for the maxillary dental arches. there was no significant difference between males and females in the three ratios.
Table (4) and Figure (9) showed the distribution of the three forms of maxillary dental arch, It could be noticed that the most prevalent arch form among the sample was the Mid form (54,05%, 55,17% and 54.73%) followed by the Narrow form (24,32%, 24,13% and 24.21%), while Wide forms being (21,62%, 20,68% and 21.05%) for males, females and the total sample respectively .
Table (3) Description for the Three Ratios for (Males and Females) with Comparisons between the Genders.
Sex
Ratio

Sex

Mean

Sd.

Min

Max

TValue

Canine Vertical / Inter Canine

M
F

0.244
0.244

0.0269
0.0236

0.193
0.180

0.313
0.292

0.023NS

Molar Vertical / Inter 1^{st} Molar

M
F

0.5430
0.5340

0.0303
0.0266

0.491
0.485

0.622
0.624

0.342NS

Total Arch Length / Inter 2^{nd} Molar

M
F

0.747
0.749

0.0294
0.0278

0.669
0.629

0.845
0.827

0.162NS

NS: Non Significant at P > 0.05.
Figure (8) The Three Ratios for (Males and Females) with Comparisons between the Genders.
Table (4) Distribution of the Three Maxillary Arch Forms for (males,females and the Total) (Frequencies and Percentages).

Males


Females


Total


Arch Type

No.

%

No.

%

No.

%

Narrow

9

24.32

14

24.13

23

24.21

Mid

20

54.05

32

55.17

52

54.73

Wide

8

21.62

12

20.68

20

21.05

Total

37

100

58

100

95

100

Figure (9) Percentages of Three Maxillary Arch Forms for(Males, Females and the Total).