It is well established that patients with a unilateral posterior crossbite exhibit reverse-sequencing chewing patterns when chewing on the affected side. The aim of the study was to compare the prevalence of reverse-sequencing chewing cycles in patients with anterior versus posterior unilateral crossbite during chewing soft and hard boluses. Eighty-six children (39 boys, 47 girls) were included in the study: 26 (10.4 ± 2.7 years) with unilateral anterior crossbite, 43 (10.2 ± 4.2 years) with unilateral posterior crossbite, and 17 (10.6 ± 2 years) with normal occlusion were selected for the study. Mandibular movements were measured with a kinesiograph (K7, Myotronics Inc. Tukwila). The kinematic signals were analyzed using custom-made software. The results showed a low prevalence of reverse-sequencing chewing cycles in patients with anterior crossbite, without any significant difference between sides and with the control group, with both soft (P = 0.33) and hard (P = 0.29) bolus. The patients with posterior unilateral crossbite showed a significant higher prevalence of reverse-sequencing chewing cycles during chewing on the crossbite side with respect to the non-crossbite side (P < 0.001) and to the control group (P < 0.001). Comparing the patients with anterior versus posterior unilateral crossbite, a significant difference (P < 0.001) in the prevalence of reverse chewing cycles was demonstrated during chewing on the posterior crossbite side only with both soft and hard bolus. In conclusion, patients with anterior versus posterior unilateral crossbite show different functional characteristics depending on which dental region is involved.

Reverse-sequencing chewing patterns evaluation in anterior versus posterior unilateral crossbite patients.

PIANCINO, MARIA GRAZIA;VALLELONGA, TERESA;FRONGIA, GIANLUIGI;BRACCO, Pietro
2012-01-01

Abstract

It is well established that patients with a unilateral posterior crossbite exhibit reverse-sequencing chewing patterns when chewing on the affected side. The aim of the study was to compare the prevalence of reverse-sequencing chewing cycles in patients with anterior versus posterior unilateral crossbite during chewing soft and hard boluses. Eighty-six children (39 boys, 47 girls) were included in the study: 26 (10.4 ± 2.7 years) with unilateral anterior crossbite, 43 (10.2 ± 4.2 years) with unilateral posterior crossbite, and 17 (10.6 ± 2 years) with normal occlusion were selected for the study. Mandibular movements were measured with a kinesiograph (K7, Myotronics Inc. Tukwila). The kinematic signals were analyzed using custom-made software. The results showed a low prevalence of reverse-sequencing chewing cycles in patients with anterior crossbite, without any significant difference between sides and with the control group, with both soft (P = 0.33) and hard (P = 0.29) bolus. The patients with posterior unilateral crossbite showed a significant higher prevalence of reverse-sequencing chewing cycles during chewing on the crossbite side with respect to the non-crossbite side (P < 0.001) and to the control group (P < 0.001). Comparing the patients with anterior versus posterior unilateral crossbite, a significant difference (P < 0.001) in the prevalence of reverse chewing cycles was demonstrated during chewing on the posterior crossbite side only with both soft and hard bolus. In conclusion, patients with anterior versus posterior unilateral crossbite show different functional characteristics depending on which dental region is involved.
2012
34
5
536
541
http://ejo.oxfordjournals.org/content/early/2011/09/15/ejo.cjr109.long
Piancino MG; Comino E; Talpone F; Vallelonga T; Frongia G; Bracco P.
File in questo prodotto:
File Dimensione Formato  
EurJOrthod2012.pdf

Accesso aperto

Descrizione: Articolo principale
Tipo di file: PDF EDITORIALE
Dimensione 1.96 MB
Formato Adobe PDF
1.96 MB Adobe PDF Visualizza/Apri

I documenti in IRIS sono protetti da copyright e tutti i diritti sono riservati, salvo diversa indicazione.

Utilizza questo identificativo per citare o creare un link a questo documento: https://hdl.handle.net/2318/101526
Citazioni
  • ???jsp.display-item.citation.pmc??? 11
  • Scopus 26
  • ???jsp.display-item.citation.isi??? 23
social impact