García MM, Perdomo GL, Valdés MD

Language: English
References: 16
Page:
PDF size: 707.07 Kb.

ABSTRACT

Introduction: Negative maxillary transverse discrepancy is not exclusive to narrow upper arch. The transverse discrepancy due to maxillary deficiency is well described, but this is not the case when the maxilla displays adequate dimensions and the origin of the problem is an excess of mandibular width.
Objective: To describe the cephalometric characteristics of negative maxillary transverse discrepancy present in narrow upper arches with those of normal or increased width.
Methods: An observational and cross-sectional study was carried out in records of patients with negative maxillary transverse discrepancy. The cases referred to the maxillofacial surgery department at Hospital Clínico Quirúrgico “Hermanos Ameijeiras” between January 2016 and January 2020 were selected. The initial study models were measured and two groups were formed: those with a distance between central fossae of 16 to 26, less than 47 mm and the other with equal or greater values. Lateral cephalometric analysis of Ricketts, McNamara, Björk & Jarabak, Burstone and soft profile were performed on the initial teleradiographs. Using the Mann Whitney U test of independent samples, measurements with statistically significant differences between both groups were selected. (p <0.05).
Results: Significant differences were found regarding the cranial-mandibular relationship, mandibular anatomy, maxillo-mandibular relationship and occlusal relationship. The most important differences observed in each group were respectively: S-Ar / Ar-Go ratio (p = 0.033), mandibular body length (p = 0.01), mandibular-maxillary difference (p = 0.003) and overjet (p = 0.043).
Conclusions: In the studied patients, negative maxillary transverse discrepancy has the same probability of presenting a wide or in norm upper arch, as well as a narrow arch. In the first case, it is more likely to find jaws with increased body length, a skeletal class III pattern and a concave profile; in the second case, the tendency is to present small jaws with increased articular angle and dental overjet.

REFERENCES

1. Leonardi R, Lo Giudice A, Rugeri M, Muraglie S, Cordasco G, Barbato E. Three-dimensional evaluation on digital casts of maxillary palatal size and morphology in patients with functional posterior crossbite. European Journal of Orthodontics. 2018 [access: 10/08/2020]; 40(5). Available from: Available from: https://academic.oup.com/ejo/article/40/5/556/4883188

2. Alleman M, Steinbacher DM. Width and Transverse Problems. In: Steinbacher DM, editor. Aesthetic Orthognathic Surgery and Rhinoplasty. Connecticut, USA: Wiley-Blackwell; 2019. p. 145-73

3. McNamaraa JA. Maxillary transverse deficiency. American Journal of Orthodontics and Dentofacial Orthopedics. 2000;117(5):556-9

4. De Clerck HJ, Proffit WR. Growth modification of the face: A current perspective with emphasis on Class III treatment. American Journal of Orthodontics and Dentofacial Orthopedics. 2015 [access: 22/07/2020]; 148(1). Available from: Available from: https://www.ajodo.org/article/S0889-5406(15)00530-2/fulltext

5. Zhang K, Huang L, Yang L, Xu L, Xue C, Xiang Z, et al. Effects of transverse relationships between maxillary arch, mouth, and face on smile esthetics. The Angle Orthodontist. 2016;86(1). DOI: 10.2319/101514.1

6. Hara S, Mitsugi M, Hirose H, Tatemoto Y. Combination of Mandibular Constriction and Intraoral Vertical Ramus Osteotomies for a Transverse Jaw Discrepancy. Plast Reconstr Surg Glob Open. 2015;3(9). PMCID: PMC4596446

7. Alexander CD, Bloomquist DS, Wallen TR. Stability of mandibular constriction with a symphyseal osteotomy. American Journal of Orthodontics and Dentofacial Orthopedics. 1993 [access: 17/08/2020]; 103(1). Available from: Available from: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/088954069370099A

8. Bloomquist D. Mandibular narrowing: advantage in transverse problems. Journal of oral and maxillofacial surgery : official journal of the American Association of Oral and Maxillofacial Surgeons. 2004 [access: 24/08/2020]; 62(3). Available from: Available from: https://www.joms.org/article/S0278-2391(03)01125-X/fulltext

9. Mayoral J, Mayoral G. Principios fundamentales y prácticas. Barcelona: Editorial Labor, S.A.; 1971.

10. Gregoret J, Tuber E, Escobar P LH, Matos da Fonseca A. Ortodoncia y cirugía ortognática. Barcelona: ESPAXS S.A.; 1997.

11. Gong A, Li J, Wang Z, Li Y, Hu F, Li Q, et al. Cranial base characteristics in anteroposterior malocclusions: A meta-analysis. The Angle Orthodontist. 2016;86(4). DOI: 10.2319/032315-186.1

12. Hasebe A, Yamaguchi T, Nakawaki T, Hikita Y, Katayama K, Maki K. Comparison of condylar size among different anteroposterior and vertical skeletal patterns using cone-beam computed tomography. The Angle Orthodontist. 2019;89(2). DOI: 10.2319/032518-229.1

13. Kajii TS, Fujita T, Sakaguchi Y, Shimada K. Osseous changes of the mandibular condyle affect backward-rotation of the mandibular ramus in Angle Class II orthodontic patients with idiopathic condylar resorption of the temporomandibular joint. CRANIO®. 2019 ;37(4). DOI: 10.1080/08869634.2017.1421446

14. Wang MF, Otsuka T, Akimoto S, Sato S. Vertical facial height and its correlation with facial width and depth: Three dimensional cone beam computed tomography evaluation based on dry skulls. International journal of stomatology & occlusion medicine. 2013;6(4). PMCID: PMC3835924

15. Awad AM, Gaballah SM, Gomaa NE. Relationship between cranial base and jaw base in different skeletal patterns. Orthodontic Waves. 2018 [access: 26/08/2020]; 77(2). Available from: Available from: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1344024117301905

16. Farheen F, Mubassar F. The assessment of resting tongue posture in different sagittal skeletal patterns. Dental Press Journal of Orthodontics. 2019 [access: 17/08/2020]; 24. Available from: Available from: http://www.scielo.br/scielo.php?script=sci_arttext&pid=S2176-94512019000300055&nrm=iso