| Literature DB >> 21801357 |
Matteo Saccucci1, Lucia Tettamanti, Stefano Mummolo, Antonella Polimeni, Felice Festa, Simona Tecco.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Idiopathic scoliosis is a deformity without clear etiology. It is unclear wether there is an association between malocclusion and scoliosis. Several types of occlusion were described in subjects with scoliosis, mostly case-reports.Entities:
Year: 2011 PMID: 21801357 PMCID: PMC3162939 DOI: 10.1186/1748-7161-6-15
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Scoliosis ISSN: 1748-7161
Principal papers showed in this review.
| Paper | Type | Main topic | Sample | Age | Main result |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| McMaster J (1965) | 3 clinical cases | Casual relationship between malocclusion and scoliosis, and viceversa | 3 adolescents | 10-15 years | After orthodontic treatment, the author observed the improvment of posture |
| Rock and Baker (1972). Reference [ | Case-report | Class II due to the weared cast | A girl | 14 years old | to recommend the use of a removable appliance to prevent the malocclusion before the surgeon operation and during the period of the wearing the cast. |
| Dayan et al. (1977). Reference [ | Transversal Case-control study | To compare facial morphology of children affected with scoliosis and treated with brace, with health children | 15 | 5-19 years (mean 10 years) | Children treated with braces (for their scoliosis) showed all vertical measurements of face significantly lower than the control group, and more protruted maxillary and mandibular bases |
| Hotchcock HP (1969). | Observational study on prevalence | Plagiocephaly in subjects with scoliosis | 144 | The study suggested the existence of an association between infantile scoliosis and plagiocephaly | |
| Ben-Bassat Y et al. (2006) | Observational study on prevalence | Prevalence of scoliosis in patients with ereditated malocclusion | 202 adolescents | 10-15 | The detection of hereditary orthodontic anomalies in young children allows the identification of a group of children who have a high risk of developing scoliosis in later years. |
| Segatto et al. (2008) | Cohort study | Malocclusion in subjects with idiopathic scoliosis | 98 subjects with scoliosis and 705 controls | 6.2 - 25.3; mean age 13.9 +/- 3.5 | a significant higher prevalence of unilateral Angle class II (asymmetric class II malocclusion) was evident among the patients with scoliosis (21.9%) compared with the control group (8.5%). The differences between the two groups in the prevalence of the midline deviation were statistically significant both in the upper and the lower dental arches. |
| In the group of adolescents with scoliosis, infacts, the unilateral Angle class II relationship showed a significant higher prevalence respect to the control group | |||||
| an orthopedic examination can be considered for patients undergoing an orthodontic-operative therapy, also when they don't show scoliosis. | |||||
| Of the 85 patients with jaw deformity, 23 (27.1%) had a Cobb angle exceeding 10°. None of the control group had scoliosis exceeding 10°. | |||||
| among the children who revealed an asymmetric upper cervical spine, the unilateral crossbite was not necessarily combined with a pathological orthopaedic variable, | |||||
| an incidence of scoliotic attitudes of 9.5%, with a statistically significant relationship among that disorders of posture, and the presence of ogival palate with bilateral crossbite | |||||
| these experimental studies revealed a high level of asymmetry in craniofacial structures, temporomandibular structures and muscle functions after an experimentally induced crossbite | |||||
Figure 1Left sided plagiocephaly with controlateral bat ear. Tracted by the paper referenced in [3].
Figure 2Angle Class II molar relationship. For the malocclusion to satisfy the definition of a full-step Class II molar relationship, the mesiobuccal cusp of the maxillary permanent first molar must occlude, at least on one side, in the embrasure between the mandibular second premolar and the mandibular permanent first molar, or farther to the mesial. If the maxillary or mandibular permanent first molar is missing, the buccal cusp of the maxillary second premolar must occlude in the embrasure between the mandibular first and second premolars, or farther to the mesial. If the maxillary permanent first molar has drifted mesially due to premature loss of the deciduous second molar, that is not considered a full-step Class II molar relationship.
Figure 3Overjet and overbite.
Figure 4Dental midline deviation. Tracted by the paper referenced in [52].
Figure 5Protrusion of maxilla - SNA angle - and retrusion of manibula - SNB angle - in a cephalometric tracing. OP: Occlusal plane; GoGn: Mandibular plane. Tracted by the paper referenced in [16].
Figure 6a-b. (a)The cast was relieved under the chin. (b) The class II malocclusion associated to the cast. Tracted by the paper referenced [9].
Figure 7A patient wearing the Milwuakee brace. Tracted by the paper referenced in [9].
Figure 8Orthopaedic braces used today. Tracted by the paper referenced in [15].
Frequency of the sagittal occlusal anomalies on the molar region, according to the study by Segatto et al. (2008).
| Parameters | Scoliosis group | Control group | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Normal molar occlusion (Angle Cl.I) frequency (%) | unilateral | ||
| bilateral | 57.12 | 64.68 | |
| Distal molar occlusion (Angle Cl.II) frequency(%) | unilateral | ||
| bilateral | 10.07 | 16.17 |
Comparison of the occlusal characteristics of the frontal region, according to the study by Segatto et al. (2008).
| Parameters | Scoliosis group | Control group | |
|---|---|---|---|
| mean ± SD (mm) | 2.74 ± 1.851 | 2.55 ± 1.509 | 2.21 ± 1.201 |
| mean ± SD (mm) | 2.58 ± 2.168 | 2.78 ± 1.715 | 3.10 ± 1.585 |
| mean ± SD (mm) | 2.08 ± 1.121 | 1.76 ± 0.972 | 1.47 ± 0.898 |
Figure 9a-b. (a)Pelvic tilt: the difference in height between the DR and the DL (right crista iliaca posterior superior [DR], and left crista iliaca posterior superior [DL]) measured in millimeters. The angle between the vertical passing through DR and DL to the horizontal reference plane was defined as angular measure in degrees. (b) Pelvic torsion was measured by the angle between the surface normals to the lumbar dimples indicating the spina iliaca posterior superior landmark. In a symmetric pelvis without torsion of the iliac bones, pelvic torsion angle is 0. The angle is positive if the normal to the right dimple points lower than the normal to the left dimple, indicating the DR to be rotated backward whereas the DL is rotated forward. Tracted by the paper referenced in [11].
Figure 10Lateral crossbite in the right side of the patient. In the left side, the occlusion is normal. Tracted by the paper referenced in [43].
Figure 11(a) Before occlusal imbalance; (b) one week after occlusal imbalance; (c) one week after the balancing of occlusion; (d) occlusal imbalance through an unilateral crossbite. Tracted by the paper referenced in [35,56].