In this study, using Bannisters' face type classification, the most dominant face types in both males and females were Type II (Euryprosopic) (35.3 % male, 34.33 % female) and Type III (Mesoprosopic) (33.2 % male, 34.33 % female).
The dominant face type in both native Fars (37.7 %) and Turkman (51.7 %) females was euryprosopic, while in males the dominant face type in native Fars (44 %) and Turkman (38.4 %) was mesoprosopic (Jahanshahi et al.).
This classification of facial types is as follows; mesoprosopic type (84.0-87.9), euryprosopic type (79.0-83.9), hypereuryprosopic type (<78.9), leptoprosopic type (88.0-92.9), hyperleptoprosopic type (>93.0) (Mane et al.).
reported that the face types for Japanese adult females was mesoprosopic (30.53 %), euryprosopic (25 %) and hypereuryprosopic (28.85 %), a finding different to the present study.
(2005) was analogous to this study, being mesoprosopic and for females euryprosopic according to Garson's facial index method.
The next most common type (25%) was euryprosopic. No hyperleptoprosopic female was found (Figure 2(a)).
In this study, the facial index showed that Chakma females were hypereuryprosopic (very broad face) followed by euryprosopic (broad face) which is in accordance with Bhasin  who described Mongoloids as a very broad or euryprosopic face to medium broad or mesoprosopic face.
In this regard leptoprosopic (long face) individuals usually have tapered arch forms while euryprosopic
(short face) individuals tend to have a broader square arch form.11 The most used arch form in the MBT philosophy is the ovoid arch form especially during the initial phase of treatment and the main purpose of this is to reduce the inventory.12 The general concept of arch form development is that initially it follows the shape of the underlying bone but later when the teeth are fully erupted it is shaped by the forces of the surround- ing musculature.13