AIM: was to determine the etiological risk factors and predictors of crossbite' treatment at children. MATERIAL AND METHODS: 270 cases with crossbites and 255 controls with other malocclusions were uniformly evaluated. The crossbites cases were divided in group I (anterior crossbite), group II (posterior crossbite) and group III (anterior and posterior crossbites) and were compared between them per Angle Class malocclusions, dysfunctional and dental causes, associations with other discrepancies, as well by need and types of treatment. Binary logistic regression was used to find risk factors and predictors. RESULTS: The mean age of cases was 10.25?2.770 years. There were found significant differences between the groups of crossbites cases (p<0.05). There were identified risk factors (non-attrition of deciduous teeth, Angle Class II malocclusion and permanent teeth extraction) and protective factors of the crossbite (the tooth decay of deciduous teeth, eruption anomalies and tongue-thrust swallowing). There were found predictors for early corrective treatment (sucking habit, non-attrition and buds crowding) with a precision of 78.5%; for normal treatment (mouth breathing and buds crowding) with a precision of 71.5%; for late treatment (Angle Class III malocclusion, dental crowding and TMJ disorders) with a precision of 83.0%; for maxillary expansion (eruption anomalies and buds crowding) with a precision of 77.0%; for oral associated surgery (macrodontia and TMJ disorders) with a precision of 75.9% (HL test, p > 0.05). CONCLUSION: The risk factors were dental furthermore; the predictors of treatment were adequate with dentition, etiology and disorders at age identification, suggesting the contribution of practitioners in intercepting this orthodontic emergency.
AIM: was to determine the etiological risk factors and predictors of crossbite' treatment at children. MATERIAL AND METHODS: 270 cases with crossbites and 255 controls with other malocclusions were uniformly evaluated. The crossbites cases were divided in group I (anterior crossbite), group II (posterior crossbite) and group III (anterior and posterior crossbites) and were compared between them per Angle Class malocclusions, dysfunctional and dental causes, associations with other discrepancies, as well by need and types of treatment. Binary logistic regression was used to find risk factors and predictors. RESULTS: The mean age of cases was 10.25?2.770 years. There were found significant differences between the groups of crossbites cases (p<0.05). There were identified risk factors (non-attrition of deciduous teeth, Angle Class II malocclusion and permanent teeth extraction) and protective factors of the crossbite (the tooth decay of deciduous teeth, eruption anomalies and tongue-thrust swallowing). There were found predictors for early corrective treatment (sucking habit, non-attrition and buds crowding) with a precision of 78.5%; for normal treatment (mouth breathing and buds crowding) with a precision of 71.5%; for late treatment (Angle Class III malocclusion, dental crowding and TMJ disorders) with a precision of 83.0%; for maxillary expansion (eruption anomalies and buds crowding) with a precision of 77.0%; for oral associated surgery (macrodontia and TMJ disorders) with a precision of 75.9% (HL test, p > 0.05). CONCLUSION: The risk factors were dental furthermore; the predictors of treatment were adequate with dentition, etiology and disorders at age identification, suggesting the contribution of practitioners in intercepting this orthodontic emergency.