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

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.

Slow or rapid palatal expansion for early treatment of unilateral posterior crossbite? Evaluation of the reverse chewing cycles correction.

OBJECTIVES: It is well established that patients with a unilateral posterior crossbite, when chewing on the affected side, show an increased frequency of reverse chewing cycles. It was hypothesized that the correction of reverse cycles may be due to the characteristics of the therapy. The aim was to investigate the prevalence of reverse chewing patterns in children with unilateral posterior crossbite before and after treatment with Function Generating Bite (FGB). MATERIALS AND METHODS: Twenty children, (9 boys, 11 girls; age, mean ± SD, 7.5 ± 1.1), 10 with a right and 10 with a left posterior unilateral crossbite were selected. Mandibular movements during chewing soft and hard boluses were measured with a kinesiograph (K7 -I, Myotronics Inc. Tukwila, Washington, USA). RESULTS: The results showed a significant difference when comparing the percentage of reverse chewing patterns, before and after therapy with FGB, during chewing on the crossbite side both with soft and hard bolus (p<0.0001). No significant differences were observed during chewing on the non-crossbite side. DISCUSSION: The results of this study confirmed that FGB corrects both the dental and functional asymmetries. Knowing that the rapid palatal expansion does not correct the masticatory function, it is of clinical relevance, for the orthodontists, the knowledge and the understanding of the functional outcomes with different therapies. CONCLUSIONS: The type of treatment and the biomechanics of the appliance used are of great importance for the correction of the reverse chewing cycles and for rebalancing the functional asymmetry of children with unilateral posterior crossbite.

Muscular activation during reverse and non-reverse chewing cycles in unilateral posterior crossbite.

The aim of this study was to characterize the kinematics and masseter muscle activation in unilateral posterior crossbite. Eighty-two children (8.6 +/- 1.3 yr of age) with unilateral posterior crossbite and 12 children (8.9 +/- 0.6 yr of age) with normal occlusion were selected for the study. Electromyography (EMG) and kinematics were concurrently recorded during mastication of a soft bolus and a hard bolus. The percentage of reverse cycles in the group of patients was 59.0 +/- 33.1% (soft bolus) and 69.7 +/- 29.7% (hard bolus) when chewing on the crossbite side. When chewing on the non-affected side, the number of reverse cycles was 16.7 +/- 24.5% (soft bolus) and 16.7 +/- 22.3% (hard bolus). The reverse cycles on the crossbite side were narrower with respect to the cycles on the non-affected side. Although both types of cycles in patients resulted in lower EMG activity of the masseter of the crossbite side than of the contralateral masseter, the activity of the non-affected side was larger for reverse than for non-reverse cycles. It was concluded that when chewing on the crossbite side, the masseter activity is reduced on the mastication side (crossbite) and is unaltered (non-reverse cycles) or increased (reverse) on the non-affected side.

Chewing pattern before and after unilateral posterior cross-bite therapy with function generating bite: a case report.

OBJECTIVES: To evaluate the chewing-cycle closing direction of a patient with a posterior unilateral crossbite, before treatment, six months and one year after correcting the malocclusion with a function generating bite. METHODS AND MATERIALS: An 8-year-old girl with right unilateral posterior cross-bite was treated with a function generating bite, which corrected the cross-bite within 5 months. Mandibular movements during mastication of a soft and of a hard bolus were recorded before and after treatment with a K6 I kinesiograph (Myotronics Inc., Seattle, WA-USA). RESULTS: Initially, there was a marked prevalence of chewing cycles with a reverse direction of closure (92% for the soft bolus and 92% for the hard bolus) during mastication on the cross-bite side. Six months after correction, during mastication on the corrected side, the percentage of chewing cycles with reverse closure decreased to 2% for the soft and 0% for the hard bolus. This decrease was still evident one year after correction (0% for the soft bolus and 18% for the hard bolus). Mastication on the healthy side at all times presented cycles with normal closing direction. CONCLUSIONS: Analysis of masticatory cycles recorded before and after orthodontic therapy showed that not only was anatomic correction achieved by the function generating bite, but also that masticatory function had regained equilibrium and symmetry and both were stable at least 1 year after the cross bite was corrected.

Reverse-sequencing chewing patterns before and after treatment of children with a unilateral posterior crossbite.

The aim of this study was to compare the percentage of reverse-sequencing chewing cycles in 22 children [9 boys and 13 girls; mean age +/- SD, 8.6 +/- 1.3 and 8.8 +/- 1.5 years, respectively), with a unilateral right or left posterior crossbite, before and after therapy. The chewing cycles were recorded using a kinesiograph while the subjects masticated a soft and a hard bolus on both the crossbite and non-crossbite side. Chewing data were acquired before and 6 months after orthodontic treatment of the crossbite with an orthodontic functional appliance, the 'Function Generating Bite'. The results showed that, before therapy, the percentage of reverse-sequencing chewing cycles on the crossbite side was significantly higher than that on the normal side (P < 0.001) with both the soft and hard bolus. In addition, the percentage of reverse-sequencing chewing cycles on the crossbite side before therapy was significantly greater than after therapy with both a soft and hard bolus (P < 0.001). No significant differences were found in the percentage of reverse-sequencing chewing cycles on the non-crossbite side, before or after therapy, either with a soft or hard bolus.