Improvement of masticatory kinematic parameters after correction of unilateral posterior crossbite: Reasons for functional retention

Piancino, Maria Grazia; Cordero-Ricardo, Maria; Cannavale, Rosangela; Vallelonga, Teresa; Garagiola, U.; Merlo, Andrea

doi:10.2319/020917-98.1

Cited by 16 publications

(25 citation statements)

References 15 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…It is remarkable that the reverse sequence chewing cycle occurred predominantly on the crossbite side whilst, on the healthy side, the chewing cycle displayed physiological closing direction. Our results are consistent with previous findings on non-cleft patients, showing that the percentage of reverse sequence chewing cycles during mastication on the crossbite side is extremely high (around 60%-70% on average), depending on the severity of the malocclusion and the bolus type [9,11,28,29].…”

Section: Discussionsupporting

confidence: 93%

Evaluation of masticatory function in patients with cleft lip and/or palate

Cassi

Blasio

Benedetto

et al. 2021

European J Oral Sciences

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The aim of this study was to evaluate the masticatory pattern in children with cleft lip and/or palate (CL/P) through investigation of the prevalence of reverse sequencing chewing cycles. The study group included 18 patients with CL/P (mean age: 7.4 yr, SD: 1.4 yr), 15 of whom had dental crossbite. The controls included a group of 18 non-CL/P children with the same types of crossbite as the study group (mean age: 7.2 yr, SD: 1.5 yr) and a group of 18 non-CL/P subjects with normal occlusion (mean age: 9.8 yr, SD: 1.9 yr). Mandibular movements during chewing of soft and hard bolus were recorded with a kinesiograph. Kinematic signals were analysed using a custom-made software. A statistical analysis was performed to compare the degree of reverse-sequencing chewing cycles between patients and controls (Kruskal-Wallis test with Dwass-Steel-Critchlow-Fligner pairwise comparisons post hoc test). A significant difference between patients with CL/P and non-CL/P subjects with normal occlusion was highlighted on the left side of mastication, which was the side with the higher prevalence of crossbite with both types of bolus. No statistical differences were found between CL/P patients and healthy controls with crossbite. Cleft-affected patients with posterior crossbite exhibited an anomalous masticatory pattern with increased reverse chewing cycles on the crossbite side.

show abstract

Section: Discussionsupporting

confidence: 93%

Evaluation of masticatory function in patients with cleft lip and/or palate

Cassi

Blasio

Benedetto

et al. 2021

European J Oral Sciences

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Most of the excluded studies [11], [21], [22], [23], [24], [25], [26], [27], [28], [29], [30], [31], [32], [33], [34], [35], [36], [37], [38], [39], [40], [41], [42], [43], [44], [45], [46], [47], [48], [49], [50], [51], [52], [53], [54], [55], [56], [57], [58], [59], [60], [61], [62], [63] divided the samples into treated and untreated control groups according to their chronological age and not according to their skeletal age. Seventeen studies [11], [21], [22], [26], [27], [36], [37], [38], [45], [46], [47], [51], [52], [54], [60], [63], [64], [65] had an untreated control group with normal occlusion or with other types of malocclusions other than posterior crossbites. Other reasons for exclusion included, subjecting the control groups to treatment [11], [32], [44], case reports [66], [67], [68], [69], using interventions other than RME [50], [51], [53], [54], [56], [64], [65], [70] or absence of a control group [31], [71], [72].…”

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Seventeen studies [11], [21], [22], [26], [27], [36], [37], [38], [45], [46], [47], [51], [52], [54], [60], [63], [64], [65] had an untreated control group with normal occlusion or with other types of malocclusions other than posterior crossbites. Other reasons for exclusion included, subjecting the control groups to treatment [11], [32], [44], case reports [66], [67], [68], [69], using interventions other than RME [50], [51], [53], [54], [56], [64], [65], [70] or absence of a control group [31], [71], [72]. Articles which couldn’t be retrieved also were excluded [73], [74], [75], [76], [77], [78].…”

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Transverse Skeletal Effects of Rapid Maxillary Expansion in Pre and Post Pubertal Subjects: A Systematic Review

Seifeldin

Elkordy

Fayed

et al. 2019

Open Access Maced J Med Sci

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

OBJECTIVE: The aim of this systematic review was to assess the transverse skeletal effects of rapid maxillary expansion (RME) in pre and post-pubertal subjects. MATERIAL AND METHODS: Five databases were searched till May 2018; Pubmed, Cochrane, Scopus, Lilacs and Web of science in addition to the manual search of other sources. There were no language restrictions. Methodological Index for Non-Randomized Studies MINORS was used to assess the quality and risk of bias of the trials included. RESULTS: Six studies were finally included in the qualitative analysis. A meta-analysis wasn’t performed due to the heterogeneity of methodologies and outcomes. All of the included studies showed drawbacks in their structure yielding weak evidence. On the short term, RME caused an increase in the maxillary and lateral-nasal widths in pre-pubertal subjects by 3.4 mm and 3.3 mm, and by 2.8 and 2.2 mm respectively in post-pubertal subjects. Although statistically insignificant, the maxillary width increase was more than that of the post-pubertal subjects by 0.6 mm. Over the long term, expansion produced permanent increases in the transverse dimensions of both the dento-alveolar and skeletal components of the maxilla and circum-maxillary structures in pre-pubertal subjects. The post-pubertal subjects presented with a statistically significant increase only in the later-nasal width by 1.3 mm than the untreated controls with no permanent increase in the skeletal maxillary width. CONCLUSION: The literature is very deficient regarding the use of skeletal age as a reference in the treatment of skeletal crossbites using RME. Only weak evidence exists supporting the increased maxillary and lateral-nasal widths after tooth-tissue borne RME in pre-pubertal subjects, with these effects being less in the post-pubertal ones.

show abstract

“…This should be an adaptive and dynamic process because our approach may be enhanced and adapted to each center by modifying or introducing orthodontic, surgical, and anesthetic principles and adding condition-specific guidelines. Relevant clinical features for activation and coordination of the masticatory muscles, i.e., the function generating bite principle, the well-designed functional appliance, and the periodontal mechanoreceptor concept [50,51,52,53], should also be considered in future management approaches to enhance the delivery of patient-specific OGS care.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Comparison of Orthognathic Surgery Outcomes Between Patients With and Without Underlying High-Risk Conditions: A Multidisciplinary Team-Based Approach and Practical Guidelines

Chou

Denadai

Chen

et al. 2019

JCM

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Orthognathic surgery (OGS) has been successfully adopted for managing a wide spectrum of skeletofacial deformities, but patients with underlying conditions have not been treated using OGS because of the relatively high risk of surgical anesthetic procedure-related complications. This study compared the OGS outcomes of patients with and without underlying high-risk conditions, which were managed using a comprehensive, multidisciplinary team-based OGS approach with condition-specific practical perioperative care guidelines. Data of surgical anesthetic outcomes (intraoperative blood loss, operative duration, need for prolonged intubation, reintubation, admission to an intensive care unit, length of hospital stay, and complications), facial esthetic outcomes (professional panel assessment), and patient-reported outcomes (FACE-Q social function, psychological well-being, and satisfaction with decision scales) of consecutive patients with underlying high-risk conditions (n = 30) treated between 2004 and 2017 were retrospectively collected. Patients without these underlying conditions (n = 30) treated during the same period were randomly selected for comparison. FACE-Q reports of 50 ethnicity-, sex-, and age-matched healthy individuals were obtained. The OGS-treated patients with and without underlying high-risk conditions differed significantly in their American Society of Anesthesiologists Physical Status (ASA-PS) classification (p < 0.05), Charlson comorbidity scores, and Elixhauser comorbidity scores. The two groups presented similar outcomes (all p > 0.05) for all assessed outcome parameters, except for intraoperative blood loss (p < 0.001; 974.3 ± 592.7 mL vs. 657.6 ± 355.0 mL). Comparisons with healthy individuals revealed no significant differences (p > 0.05). The patients with underlying high-risk conditions treated using a multidisciplinary team-based OGS approach and the patients without the conditions had similar OGS-related outcomes.

show abstract

Improvement of masticatory kinematic parameters after correction of unilateral posterior crossbite: Reasons for functional retention

Cited by 16 publications

References 15 publications

Evaluation of masticatory function in patients with cleft lip and/or palate

Evaluation of masticatory function in patients with cleft lip and/or palate

Transverse Skeletal Effects of Rapid Maxillary Expansion in Pre and Post Pubertal Subjects: A Systematic Review

Comparison of Orthognathic Surgery Outcomes Between Patients With and Without Underlying High-Risk Conditions: A Multidisciplinary Team-Based Approach and Practical Guidelines

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About