The relationship between selected parameters of a cephalometric analysis determining the vertical morphology of facial skeleton and bite force

• Autorzy: Szymanska J. , Sidorowicz L.
• Języki publikacji: EN

Abstrakty

EN

Background: There are few studies devoted to an assessment of the relation between bite force and detailed results of cephalometric analysis that determine craniofacial structure. The purpose of the study was to assess the correlation between the selected criteria determining the craniofacial structure and bite force in patients with normal and increased vertical relation of the bases of jaws and skull. Materials and methods: The study material included 120 patients, aged between 7 and 17 years, who presented for examination and possible orthodontic treatment. The patients were divided into a study group and a control group. The basis of this division were ML-NL and ML-NSL angles, according to Segner’s and Hasund’s analysis standards, respectively: above 27° and above 30° in the study group, and 20.0 ± 7.0° and 28.0 ± 5.0° in the control group. Bite force was tested using a digital dynamometer calibrated in Newtons. The measurement was performed at the level of the first permanent molars. Vertical relations were assessed using the following cephalometric measurements: ML-NSL, ML-NL, NL-NSL, N-Me, Sp-Me, SpMe:NMe, ms-NL, SGo:NMe. Results: Bite force was not found to be dependent on the lower anterior face height (Sp-Me), the ratio of anterior lower to total anterior face height (SpMe:NMe), and NL-NSL angle both in patients with abnormal and normal relations of bases of jaws and skull. Although statistically non-significant, the average mean and maximum bite force values were found to be lower in patients with high-angle relation of bases of jaws and skull than in subjects with normal relation of bases of jaws and skull. Conclusions: Among the selected parameters determining the vertical craniofacial structure, the rear height of the alveolar process (ms-NL) exerts the greatest influence on bite force in both patients with increased and normal vertical relation of bases of jaws and skull, and with an increase in the value of ms-NL, bite force is reduced. (Folia Morphol 2017; 76, 4: 736–741)

• Wydawca: -
• Czasopismo: Folia Morphologica
• Rocznik: 2017
• Tom: 76
• Numer: 4
• Opis fizyczny: p.736-741,ref.

Twórcy

autor

Szymanska J.

• Chair and Department of Paedodontics, Medical University of Lublin, Poland

autor

Sidorowicz L.

• Chair and Department of Jaw Orthopedics, Medical University of Lublin, Poland

Bibliografia

• 1. Andersen MK, Sonnesen L. Risk factors for low molar bite force in adult orthodontic patients. Eur J Orthod. 2013; 35(4): 421–426, doi: 10.1093/ejo/cjs003, indexed in Pubmed: 22291432.
• 2. Björk A. Prediction of mandibular growth rotation. Am J Orthod. 1969; 55(6): 585–599, doi: 10.1016/0002-9416(69)90036-0.
• 3. Braun S, Bantleon HP, Hnat WP, et al. A study of bite force, part 2: Relationship to various cephalometric measurements. Angle Orthod. 1995; 65(5): 373–377, doi: 10.1043/0003-3219(1995)065<0373:ASOBFP>2.0.CO;2, indexed in Pubmed: 8526297.
• 4. Castelo PM, Gavião MB, Pereira LJ, et al. Maximal bite force, facial morphology and sucking habits in young children with functional posterior crossbite. J Appl Oral Sci. 2010; 18(2): 143–148, indexed in Pubmed: 20485925.
• 5. Charalampidou M, Kjellberg H, Georgiakaki I, et al. Masseter muscle thickness and mechanical advantage in relation to vertical craniofacial morphology in children. Acta Odontol Scand. 2008; 66(1): 23–30, doi: 10.1080/00016350701884604, indexed in Pubmed: 18320415.
• 6. Ciccone de Faria Tdos S, Hallak Regalo SC, Thomazinho A, et al. Masticatory muscle activity in children with a skeletal or dentoalveolar open bite. Eur J Orthod. 2010; 32(4): 453–458, doi: 10.1093/ejo/cjp132.
• 7. García-Morales P, Buschang PH, Throckmorton GS, et al. Maximum bite force, muscle efficiency and mechanical advantage in children with vertical growth patterns. Eur J Orthod. 2003; 25(3): 265–272, indexed in Pubmed: 12831216.
• 8. Ingervall B, Minder C. Correlation between maximum bite force and facial morphology in children. Angle Orthod. 1997; 67(6): 415–422; discussion 423, doi: 10.1043/0003-3219(1997)067<0415:CBMBFA>2.3.CO;2, indexed in Pubmed: 9428959.
• 9. Kiliaridis S, Georgiakaki I, Katsaros C. Masseter muscle thickness and maxillary dental arch width. Eur J Orthod. 2003; 25(3): 259–263, doi: 10.1093/ejo/25.3.259, indexed in Pubmed: 12831215.
• 10. Kiliaridis S, Kjellberg H, Wenneberg B, et al. The relationship between maximal bite force, bite force endurance, and facial morphology during growth. A cross-sectional study. Acta Odontol Scand. 1993; 51(5): 323–331, indexed in Pubmed: 8279273.
• 11. Koc D, Dogan A, Bek B. Bite force and influential factors on bite force measurements: a literature review. Eur J Dent. 2010; 4(2): 223–232, indexed in Pubmed: 20396457.
• 12. Kovero O, Hurmerinta K, Zepa I, et al. Maximal bite force and its associations with spinal posture and craniofacial morphology in young adults. Acta Odontol Scand. 2002; 60(6): 365–369, indexed in Pubmed: 12512887.
• 13. Lowe AA, Takada K, Taylor LM. Muscle activity during function and its correlation with craniofacial morphology in a sample of subjects with Class II, Division 1 malocclusions. Am J Orthod. 1983; 84(3): 204–211, indexed in Pubmed: 6577792.
• 14. Pereira LJ, Gavião MB, Bonjardim LR, et al. Muscle thickness, bite force, and craniofacial dimensions in adolescents with signs and symptoms of temporomandibular dysfunction. Eur J Orthod. 2007; 29(1): 72–78, doi: 10.1093/ejo/cjl055, indexed in Pubmed: 17290018.
• 15. Proffit WR, Fields HW. Occlusal forces in normal- and longface children. J Dent Res. 1983; 62(5): 571–574, doi: 10.1177/00220345830620051301, indexed in Pubmed: 6573374.
• 16. Segner D, Hasund A. Indywidualna kefalometria. Med Tour Press International, Warszawa 1996.
• 17. Shinkai RS, Lazzari FL, Canabarro SA, et al. Maximum occlusal force and medial mandibular flexure in relation to vertical facial pattern: a cross-sectional study. Head Face Med. 2007; 3: 18, doi: 10.1186/1746-160X-3-18, indexed in Pubmed: 17407566.
• 18. Sidorowicz Ł, Szymańska J. The relationship between facial skeleton morphology and bite force in people with a normal relation of the bases of jaws and skull. Folia Morphol. 2015; 74(4): 508–512, doi: 10.5603/FM.2015.0115, indexed in Pubmed: 26620514.
• 19. Sondang P, Kumagai H, Tanaka E, et al. Correlation between maximum bite force and craniofacial morphology of young adults in Indonesia. J Oral Rehabil. 2003; 30(11): 1109–1117, indexed in Pubmed: 14641677.
• 20. Sonnesen L, Bakke M. Molar bite force in relation to occlusion, craniofacial dimensions, and head posture in pre-orthodontic children. Eur J Orthod. 2005; 27(1): 58–63, doi: 10.1093/ejo/cjh069, indexed in Pubmed: 15743864.
• 21. Tecco S, Crincoli V, Di Bisceglie B, et al. Relation between facial morphology on lateral skull radiographs and sEMG activity of head, neck, and trunk muscles in Caucasian adult females. J Electromyogr Kinesiol. 2011; 21(2): 298–310, doi: 10.1016/j.jelekin.2010.10.014, indexed in Pubmed: 21138792.
• 22. Tuxen A, Bakke M, Pinholt EM. Comparative data from young men and women on masseter muscle fibres, function and facial morphology. Arch Oral Biol. 1999; 44(6): 509–518, indexed in Pubmed: 10401529.
• 23. Uchida Y, Motoyoshi M, Shigeeda T, et al. Relationship between masseter muscle size and maxillary morphology. Eur J Orthod. 2011; 33(6): 654–659, doi: 10.1093/ejo/cjq152, indexed in Pubmed: 21262936.
• 24. Ueda HM, Ishizuka Y, Miyamoto K, et al. Relationship between masticatory muscle activity and vertical craniofacial morphology. Angle Orthod. 1998; 68(3): 233–238, doi: 10.1043/0003-3219(1998)068<0233:RBMMAA>2.3.CO;2, indexed in Pubmed: 9622760.
• 25. Usui T, Uematsu S, Kanegae H, et al. Change in maximum occlusal force in association with maxillofacial growth. Orthod Craniofac Res. 2007; 10(4): 226–234, doi: 10.1111/j.1601-6343.2007.00405.x, indexed in Pubmed: 17973690.
• 26. van Spronsen PH, Weijs WA, Valk J, et al. A comparison of jaw muscle cross-sections of long-face and normal adults. J Dent Res. 1992; 71(6): 1279–1285, doi: 10.1177/00220345920710060301, indexed in Pubmed: 1613176.

Identyfikatory

DOI

10.5603/FM.a2017.0040