4.1 Article

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

Journal

EUROPEAN JOURNAL OF ORTHODONTICS
Volume 34, Issue 5, Pages 536-541

Publisher

OXFORD UNIV PRESS
DOI: 10.1093/ejo/cjr109

Keywords

-

Funding

  1. Italian Ministry of Research [2KAZKN]

Ask authors/readers for more resources

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.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.1
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available