Maxillary deficiency is one of the facial features of Down syndrome (DS). Differences in craniofacial morphology between DS and nonsyndromic skeletal Class III malocclusion with maxillary deficiency remain unclear. This study compared the craniofacial differences of white male children from Central-Western Brazil with DS (n = 30, mean age: 8 years 3 months), skeletal Class III profile with maxillary deficiency (n = 30, mean age: 7 years 9 months), and skeletal Class I profile (n = 30, mean age: 8 years 2 months), using lateral cephalometric radiographs. The differences among the three groups were compared with analysis of variance and Tukey's tests. The DS group showed reduced anterior cranial base (S-N, P < 0.001] and facial dimensions (Co-Gn, N-Me, N-ANS, and ANS-Me, P < 0.001), except in posterior dimensions (S-Go, P < 0.005; Ar-Go, P > 0.005). Maxillary length (Co-A, P < 0.001) and facial convexity (NAP, P < 0.005) were reduced when compared with the control group, although maxillary position to cranial base (SNA, P < 0.005) was within the normal range. A flattened cranial base (BaSN, P < 0.001) also contributed to differentiating DS from nonsyndromic groups. The group with maxillary deficiency showed a more unfavourable maxillomandibular relationship (MMD, P < 0.001) and a mandibular protrusion (SNB, P < 0.001). Subjects with DS differed from Class III with maxillary deficiency with respect to the flatter cranial base and reduced maxillary length. Maxillary deficiency was not so expressive in the face of DS subjects because of the overall reduction in craniofacial dimensions.

Objective: To compare oral health-related quality of life (OHRQoL) before treatment of adults with unilateral cleft lip and palate (UCLP) and surgical Class III malocclusion, and to consider if clefts needing different orthodontic treatment protocols could influence people’s self-perception. Design: Cross sectional. Setting: Cleft Lip and Palate Center and Clinic of Orthognathic Surgery from a School of Dentistry. Participants: A sample of adults with repaired nonsyndromic UCLP (n = 52) which was age- and sex-matched with a noncleft Class III malocclusion sample seeking orthognathic surgery (n = 51). In turn, the cleft group was subdivided according to treatment planning into nonsurgical orthodontic and surgical orthodontic approaches. Main Outcome Measure: The whole sample was assessed using the short-form oral health impact profile (OHIP-14), with higher scores indicating a poorer OHRQoL. Statistical comparisons were performed with Mann-Whitney U and Kruskal-Wallis tests, and effect size. Bonferroni adjustment was used for post hoc tests ( P < .017). Results: The OHIP-14 scores of the UCLP and Class III groups were significantly different ( P = .001, η2 = 0.108), and higher in Class III. The largest commitment was in the physical disability, physical pain, and psychological disability domains. In addition, no differences were found when the UCLP treatment planning was considered. Conclusion: Surgical Class III malocclusion have a poorer OHRQoL when compared to patients with UCLP, irrespective of whether they are treated surgically or orthodontically. Therefore, the greater commitment of OHRQoL appears to be influenced by the etiology of Class III, and not by treatment plan.

ObjectiveThere is little information regarding the mesiodistal angulation of permanent teeth in mixed dentition. The aim of this study was to evaluate mesiodistal root angulation of permanent incisors, canines and first molars of 100 Brazilian children, using a new horizontal reference plane based on the midpoint of the intercuspation of primary canines and permanent first molars in panoramic radiographs during the mixed-dentition phase. Material and methodsChildren were equally divided between the genders with a mean age of 8.9 years (SD=0.76), normal occlusion and no eruptive disturbances. ResultsThe angulation of the permanent maxillary first molars was close to the vertical, whereas the mandibular molars presented approximately 25 degrees of distal root angulation. The maxillary canines were the most distally angulated teeth, whereas the permanent mandibular canines were vertically positioned. The evaluation of the anterior maxillary area showed vertical position of permanent lateral, and central incisors with a slight distal angulation, whereas the permanent mandibular incisors tended to a mesial radicular convergence. ConclusionsThe proposed reference line could be useful in mixed dentition root angulation evaluation; there was a slight asymmetry in the mesiodistal angulation among homologous teeth, and also a small variation between the male and the female groups, but no difference between 8-and 10-year-old children.

No abstract