| Literature DB >> 24326143 |
Bhadrinath Srinivasan1, Arun B Chitharanjan.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: The role of ankyloglossia in etiology of malocclusion is not much discussed over the years. The aim of the present study was to assess the skeletal and dental characteristics in subjects with ankyloglossia.Entities:
Mesh:
Year: 2013 PMID: 24326143 PMCID: PMC4384905 DOI: 10.1186/2196-1042-14-44
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Prog Orthod ISSN: 1723-7785 Impact factor: 2.750
Figure 1Ankyloglossia.
Figure 2Measurement of ankyloglossia with digital calliper.
Measurements of ankyloglossia
| Groups | Sex (%) | Mean measurement on the tongue (mm) | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Male | Female | ||
| 1 | 59.65 | 40.35 | 8.32 |
| 2 | 53.33 | 46.66 | 19.17 |
Grade of ankyloglossia
| Mild | Moderate | Severe |
|---|---|---|
| 12 (21.05%) | 37 (64.91%) | 8 (14.03%) |
Number of subjects in group 1 and percentage.
Independent test for intergroup comparison of means between group 1 and group 2
| Parameters (deg) | Groups | Mean | Standard deviation |
|
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Go-Gn-SN angle | 1 | 31.84 | 4.225 | 0.372 |
| 2 | 31.08 | 3.758 | ||
| FMA | 1 | 26.75 | 4.563 | 0.200 |
| 2 | 25.74 | 3.070 |
ANOVA for comparison of means of parameters among the different grades of ankyloglossia
| Parameters (deg) | Grades of ankyloglossia | Mean | Standard deviation |
|
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Go-Gn-SN angle | Grade 1 | 32.38 | 3.114 | 0.047a |
| Grade 2 | 32.73 | 5.042 | ||
| Grade 3 | 28.75 | 4.634 | ||
| FMA | Grade 1 | 26.13 | 3.399 | 0.142 |
| Grade 2 | 27.51 | 4.181 | ||
| Grade 3 | 24.83 | 4.345 |
aThe mean difference is significant at the 0.05 level.
Tukey HSD for comparison of means among the different grades of ankyloglossia individually
| Parameters (deg) | Grades of ankyloglossia | Intergroup comparison between grades of ankyloglossia | Significance |
|---|---|---|---|
| Go-Gn-SN angle | Grade 1 | Grade 2 | 0.980 |
| Grade 3 | 0.225 | ||
| Grade 2 | Grade 1 | 0.980 | |
| Grade 3 | 0.038a | ||
| Grade 3 | Grade 1 | 0.225 | |
| Grade 2 | 0.038a | ||
| FMA | Grade 1 | Grade 2 | 0.665 |
| Grade 3 | 0.772 | ||
| Grade 2 | Grade 1 | 0.665 | |
| Grade 3 | 0.133 | ||
| Grade3 | Grade 1 | 0.772 | |
| Grade 3 | 0.133 |
aThe mean difference is significant at the 0.05 level.
Independent test for intergroup comparison of means between groups 1 and 2
| Parameters (mm) | Groups | Mean | Standard deviation |
|
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Maxillary intercanine width | 1 | 33.0084 | 3.983 | 0.000a |
| 2 | 35.4022 | 2.937 | ||
| Mandibular intercanine width | 1 | 26.5837 | 2.858 | 0.005a |
| 2 | 27.9598 | 1.621 | ||
| Maxillary intermolar width | 1 | 42.8074 | 4.938 | 0.000a |
| 2 | 48.3738 | 4.200 | ||
| Mandibular intermolar width | 1 | 39.8951 | 4.197 | 0.122 |
| 2 | 41.0918 | 4.275 | ||
| Maxillary tooth size-arch length discrepancy | 1 | 3.60 | 3.26950 | 0.010a |
| 2 | 5.05 | 3.17573 | ||
| Mandibular tooth size-arch length discrepancy | 1 | 3.49 | 2.36347 | 0.057 |
| 2 | 4.40 | 2.74916 | ||
| Overbite | 1 | 2.75 | 2.157 | 0.468 |
| 2 | 2.98 | 1.282 |
aThe mean difference is significant at the 0.05 level.
ANOVA for comparison of means of parameters among different grades of ankyloglossia
| Parameters (mm) | Grades of ankyloglossia | Mean | Standard deviation |
|
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Maxillary intercanine width | Grade 1 | 34.6013 | 3.09882 | 0.324 |
| Grade 2 | 32.6724 | 3.01512 | ||
| Grade 3 | 32.9825 | 4.04118 | ||
| Mandibular intercanine width | Grade 1 | 26.1613 | 2.29260 | 0.624 |
| Grade 2 | 26.8103 | 2.26657 | ||
| Grade 3 | 26.1667 | 2.79068 | ||
| Maxillary intermolar width | Grade 1 | 43.2563 | 3.69900 | 0.228 |
| Grade 2 | 43.0678 | 2.30516 | ||
| Grade 3 | 41.7050 | 2.01913 | ||
| Mandibular intermolar width | Grade 1 | 38.5275 | 3.92119 | 0.422 |
| Grade 2 | 40.3730 | 3.98773 | ||
| Grade 3 | 39.3333 | 3.79793 | ||
| Maxillary tooth size-arch length discrepancy | Grade 1 | 1.88 | 4.155 | 0.177 |
| Grade 2 | 3.57 | 3.637 | ||
| Grade 3 | 4.83 | 1.899 | ||
| Maxillary tooth size-arch length discrepancy | Grade 1 | 2.50 | 2.000 | 0.481 |
| Grade 2 | 3.49 | 3.288 | ||
| Grade 3 | 4.17 | 2.480 | ||
| Overbite | Grade 1 | 2.13 | 1.642 | 0.001a |
| Grade 2 | 2.26 | 2.127 | ||
| Grade 3 | 4.67 | 1.435 |
aThe mean difference is significant at the 0.05 level.
Tukey HSD for comparison of means among the different grades of ankyloglossia individually
| Parameters (mm) | Grades of ankyloglossia | Intergroup comparison between grades of ankyloglossia | Significance |
|---|---|---|---|
| Maxillary intercanine width | Grade 1 | Grade 2 | 0.291 |
| Grade 3 | 0.526 | ||
| Grade 2 | Grade 1 | 0.291 | |
| Grade 3 | 0.956 | ||
| Grade3 | Grade 1 | 0.526 | |
| Grade 2 | 0.956 | ||
| Mandibular intercanine width | Grade 1 | Grade 2 | 0.766 |
| Grade 3 | 1.000 | ||
| Grade 2 | Grade 1 | 0.766 | |
| Grade 3 | 0.697 | ||
| Grade 3 | Grade 1 | 1.000 | |
| Grade 2 | 0.697 | ||
| Maxillary intermolar width | Grade 1 | Grade 2 | 0.979 |
| Grade3 | 0.363 | ||
| Grade 2 | Grade 1 | 0.979 | |
| Grade 3 | 0.232 | ||
| Grade 3 | Grade 1 | 0.363 | |
| Grade 2 | 0.232 | ||
| Mandibular intermolar width | Grade 1 | Grade 2 | 0.458 |
| Grade 3 | 0.896 | ||
| Grade 2 | Grade 1 | 0.458 | |
| Grade 3 | 0.708 | ||
| Grade 3 | Grade 1 | 0.896 | |
| Grade 2 | 0.708 | ||
| Maxillary tooth size-arch length discrepancy | Grade 1 | Grade 2 | 0.421 |
| Grade 3 | 0.152 | ||
| Grade 2 | Grade 1 | 0.421 | |
| Grade 3 | 0.512 | ||
| Grade 3 | Grade 1 | 0.152 | |
| Grade 2 | 0.512 | ||
| Mandibular tooth size-arch length discrepancy | Grade 1 | Grade 2 | 0.677 |
| Grade 3 | 0.448 | ||
| Grade 2 | Grade 1 | 0.677 | |
| Grade 3 | 0.774 | ||
| Grade 3 | Grade 1 | 0.448 | |
| Grade 2 | 0.774 | ||
| Overbite | Grade 1 | Grade 2 | 0.984 |
| Grade 3 | 0.016a | ||
| Grade 2 | Grade 1 | 0.984 | |
| Grade 3 | 0.001a | ||
| Grade 3 | Grade 1 | 0.016a | |
| Grade 2 | 0.001a |
aThe mean difference is significant at the 0.05 level.
Measurements on lateral cephalogram
| Skeletal base | ||
|---|---|---|
|
|
|
|
| 40 (70.16%) | 15 (26.31%) | 2 (3.5%) |
Number of subjects in group 1 and percentage.