Skip Navigation


The European Journal of Orthodontics Advance Access originally published online on June 13, 2006
The European Journal of Orthodontics 2006 28(5):480-484; doi:10.1093/ejo/cjl014
This Article
Right arrow Abstract Freely available
Right arrow FREE Full Text (PDF) Freely available
Right arrow All Versions of this Article:
28/5/480    most recent
cjl014v1
Right arrow Alert me when this article is cited
Right arrow Alert me if a correction is posted
Services
Right arrow Email this article to a friend
Right arrow Similar articles in this journal
Right arrow Similar articles in ISI Web of Science
Right arrow Similar articles in PubMed
Right arrow Alert me to new issues of the journal
Right arrow Add to My Personal Archive
Right arrow Download to citation manager
Right arrow Search for citing articles in:
ISI Web of Science (1)
Right arrowRequest Permissions
Google Scholar
Right arrow Articles by Piancino, M. G.
Right arrow Articles by Bracco, P.
Right arrow Search for Related Content
PubMed
Right arrow PubMed Citation
Right arrow Articles by Piancino, M. G.
Right arrow Articles by Bracco, P.
Social Bookmarking
Add to CiteULike   Add to Connotea   Add to Del.icio.us  
What's this?

© The Author 2006. Published by Oxford University Press on behalf of the European Orthodontic Society. All rights reserved. For permissions, please email: journals.permissions@oxfordjournals.org.

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

Maria Grazia Piancino*, Francesca Talpone*, Paola Dalmasso**, Cesare Debernardi*, Arthur Lewin*** and Pietro Bracco*

* Departments of Orthodontics and Gnathology-Masticatory Function, Italy
** Medical Statistics and Biometry, Turin University, Italy
*** Department of Orthodontics, University of the Witwatersrand, Johannesburg, South Africa

Address for correspondence Professor Pietro Bracco, Cattedra di Ortognatodonzia e gnatologia (funzione masticatoria), Scuola di specializzazione in Ortognatodonzia, I-10126 Torino, Italy. E-mail: pietro.bracco{at}unito.it


   Summary
Top
 Summary
Introduction
 Subjects and methods
 Results
 Discussion
 Conclusions
 References
 
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.


   Introduction
Top
 Summary
 Introduction
Subjects and methods
 Results
 Discussion
 Conclusions
 References
 
A posterior unilateral crossbite is considered a serious asymmetric malocclusion (Moller and Troelstrup, 1975Go; Pinto et al., 2001Go; Bracco et al., 2002Go; Harrison and Ashby, 2003Go). It may develop during eruption of the primary dentition and can involve the permanent dentition at a later stage of development. It may originate from a skeletal or dental malrelationship, or both, and may lead to a mandibular displacement (Daskalogiannakis, 2002Go).

It is well established that children with a unilateral posterior crossbite exhibit unusual chewing patterns when chewing on the affected side, and this is characterized by an increased frequency of reverse sequencing (Lewin, 1985Go; Ben-Bassat et al., 1993Go; Brin et al., 1996Go; Pinto et al., 2001; Throckmorton et al., 2001Go; Saitoh et al., 2002Go). Usually, the mandible deviates laterally, towards the bolus side, and then, during closure, medially, through the trans-cuspal and intercuspal phases of mastication. In reverse sequencing, the mandible first deviates medially and then laterally, thus ensuring overlap of opposing dental occlusal surfaces (Figure 1). This reverse chewing pattern is dependent on central motor control.


Figure 1
View larger version (20K):
[in this window]
[in a new window]
  		Figure 1 In subjects without a crossbite, the mandible, in the majority of chewing cycles, deviates to the bolus side on opening, especially if the bolus is known to offer resistance. It then moves medially on closure to approximate and traverse the opposing occlusal tooth surfaces during the close-open transition (above left). In subjects with a unilateral posterior crossbite, the sequence is reversed on the bolus side in order to facilitate opposition of the tooth surfaces during the close-open transition (above right). (Reproduced with the permission of Lewin ‘Electrognathographics’ and the Quintessence Publishing Co.)

 
Reverse-sequencing chewing cycles occur on the crossbite side only; this is the reason why a unilateral posterior crossbite is characterized by both dental and functional asymmetry. Moreover, this malocclusion occurs at an early stage in development and has a significant influence on the developing motor control of mastication in the central nervous system (Throckmorton et al., 2001Go). Asymmetric masticatory function during growth has a biological impact on the growing structures and may lead to asymmetric anatomical structures (bones, temporomandibular joint, muscles, and teeth) on completion of growth. Such asymmetries may be prevented by orthodontic therapy at an early stage in development. (Enlow, 1986Go; Pirttiniemi et al., 1990Go, 1991Go; Lam et al., 1999Go; Nerder et al., 1999Go; Santos Pinto et al., 2001Go; Gazit-Rappaport et al., 2003Go).

The aim of this study was to investigate the prevalence of reverse-sequencing chewing cycles in children with a unilateral posterior crossbite, when chewing on the crossbite and non-crossbite sides, before and after therapy.


   Subjects and methods
Top
 Summary
 Introduction
 Subjects and methods
Results
 Discussion
 Conclusions
 References
 
Twenty-two children (9 boys, 13 girls; mean age ± SD, 8.6 ± 1.3 and 8.8 ± 1.5 years, respectively), with a posterior unilateral crossbite, were selected from patients referred to the Department of Orthodontics, University of Turin, Italy. Before entering the study, informed consent was obtained from all parents.

The inclusion criteria were as follows: a functional unilateral right or left posterior crossbite; mixed dentition; no signs or symptoms of dental or myofacial disorders; and no previous orthodontic therapy.

Each patient was treated with a functional appliance: the ‘Function Generating Bite’ (Figure 2; Bracco and Solinas, 1979Go; Castroflorio et al., 2004Go). The appliances were individually manufactured and made of acrylic resin and resilient stainless steel, with posterior metallic bite planes preventing the teeth from intercuspal contact (Figures 3 and 4). At the end of treatment, the buccal cusps of the upper teeth, which were previously in crossbite, overlapped the lower teeth, thus providing the appropriate physiological stimuli from peripheral receptors and proprioceptors. The mean treatment time ± SD was 10.1 ± 8.9 months. The recordings of chewing cycles were carried out before treatment and after a retention period of 6 months.


Figure 2
View larger version (53K):
[in this window]
[in a new window]
  		Figure 2 The Function Generating Bite appliance. The tooth cups compress the metalic bite plane which is made of a special resilient stainless steel. The resilience of the bite planes and the elasticity of the wires of the appliance permit the teeth to move slowly and gradually avoiding dental trauma.

 

Figure 3
View larger version (58K):
[in this window]
[in a new window]
  		Figure 3 Schematic representation of the Function Generating Bite. (A) Posterior metallic bite planes (B) palatal resin plate, and (C) expansion spring.

 

Figure 4
View larger version (29K):
[in this window]
[in a new window]
  		Figure 4 Schematic representation of the orthodontic movement which is the result of the action of the posterior metallic bite plane (A) and of the force of the expansion spring (C).

 
The patients were instructed to chew a soft bolus (chewing gum) and then a hard bolus (wine gum), firstly non-deliberately and then deliberately on the right and left sides. The duration of each test was 10 seconds and each set was repeated three times.

Mandibular movement was measured with a kinesiograph (K6-I, Myotronics Inc. Tukwila, Washington, USA) which measures jaw movements within an accuracy of 0.1 mm. Multiple sensors (Hall effect) in a lightweight array (4 oz) track the motion of a magnet attached to the midpoint of the lower incisors (Jankelson, 1980Go). The kinesiograph was interfaced with a computer for data storage and subsequent analysis.

The raw data were analysed using a customized program, the ‘Chewing Cycles Analyser’, developed at the University of Torino. This is based on the approximation of the chewing cycle using Bezier curves (Bezier, 1993Go; Piancino et al., 2006Go). It divides the chewing cycles into clockwise and anti-clockwise movements depending on the vectorial direction of closure. Two portions of the curve are selected for both the opening and the closing phase. For the opening phase, two points, P1 and P2, are placed 0.5 and 2.5 mm, respectively, from the beginning of the cycle and, for the closing phase, points P3 and P4 are placed 4 and 2 mm, respectively, from the end of the cycle. The numerical integral of the closed curve delimited by P1, P2, P3, and P4 is then computed. The result of the integral is a number with a sign: its absolute value indicates the curve area and its sign the curve direction: if it is positive, the cycle is counter-clockwise and, if it is negative, the cycle is clockwise.

Statistical evaluation of the results was performed using Fisher's exact test and a two-sample Wilcoxon signed-rank test (Mann-Whitney) to evaluate differences between right and left crossbite chewing sequences. The proportion of reverse cycles was calculated for each subject before and after treatment and the difference in the matched pairs tested using a Wilcoxon signed-rank test.


   Results
Top
 Summary
 Introduction
 Subjects and methods
 Results
Discussion
 Conclusions
 References
 
The results showed no statistically significant difference in the prevalence of reverse chewing sequences between the children with a right or left unilateral posterior crossbite, either with a soft or a hard bolus before therapy (Tables 1 and 2); pre- and post-treatment analyses were performed on the pooled sample.


View this table:
[in this window]
[in a new window]
  		Table 1 Comparison between children with a right and left unilateral posterior crossbite malocclusion.

 

View this table:
[in this window]
[in a new window]
  		Table 2 Comparison between the prevalence of a reverse-sequencing chewing pattern in children with a right and left unilateral posterior crossbite malocclusion.

 
A statistically significant difference was observed when the percentages of reverse-sequencing chewing patterns, on the crossbite and non-crossbite sides, before therapy, were compared. The percentage of reverse-sequencing chewing cycles was 41 per cent (0-96 per cent) for a soft and 66 per cent (0-98 per cent) for a hard bolus when chewing on the crossbite side and 5 per cent (0-31 per cent) for both a soft and a hard bolus when chewing on the non-crossbite side (P < 0.001; Table 3; Figure 5).


View this table:
[in this window]
[in a new window]
  		Table 3 Proportion of reverse-sequencing chewing cycles in subjects with a unilateral posterior crossbite malocclusion before/after treatment on the crossbite and non-crossbite sides.

 

Figure 5
View larger version (22K):
[in this window]
[in a new window]
  		Figure 5 Comparison of the proportion of reverse-sequencing chewing cycles pre- and post-treatment in children with a unilateral posterior crossbite: during chewing of a hard bolus on the crossbite side and on the non-crossbite side.

 
A statistically significant difference was found when comparing the percentage of reverse-sequencing chewing patterns before and after therapy on the crossbite side (Table 3). Before therapy, the percentage of reverse-sequencing chewing cycles was 41 per cent (0-96 per cent) when chewing a soft and 66 per cent (0-98 per cent) when chewing a hard bolus. After therapy, it was 7 (0-59; P < 0.001) and 5 (0-3; P < 0.001) per cent, respectively (Table 3; Figure 5).

No statistically significant difference was observed when the percentages of reverse-sequencing chewing cycles were compared before and after therapy during chewing on the non-crossbite side. Before therapy, the percentage of reverse-sequencing chewing cycles was 5 per cent for both a soft (0-57 per cent) and hard (0-37 per cent) bolus. After therapy, it was still 5 per cent for both a soft (0-38 per cent) and a hard (0-48 per cent; Table 3; Figure 5) bolus.


   Discussion
Top
 Summary
 Introduction
 Subjects and methods
 Results
 Discussion
Conclusions
 References
 
In this study, the chewing patterns of children with unilateral posterior crossbites were monitored before and after therapy. There have been no previous reports in the literature demonstrating a significant reduction in reverse sequencing after orthodontic therapy.

Before therapy, it was found that the percentage of reverse sequencing during chewing on the crossbite side was significantly higher than that on the unaffected side. This was expected and has been confirmed in previous studies (Lewin, 1985Go; Ben-Bassat et al., 1993Go; Brin et al., 1996Go; Pinto et al., 2001Go; Throckmorton et al., 2001Go; Saitoh et al., 2002Go).

Some authors have evaluated the prevalence of reverse-sequencing chewing cycles after dental correction of a unilateral posterior crossbite. Ben-Bassat et al. (1993)Go showed that successful treatment of a unilateral crossbite, with palatal expansion, did not eliminate the reverse-sequencing chewing cycles. Throckmorton et al. (2001)Go, evaluated masticatory cycles in children treated with rapid palatal expansion but did not obtain a reduction in the reverse-sequencing chewing pattern. They speculated that the reverse sequencing persists after dental correction of a unilateral posterior crossbite because this malocclusion develops during eruption of the primary dentition and has an influence on the developing central pattern generator, establishing the reverse-sequencing type of chewing pattern which is then resistant to change.

The results of the present study show that the percentage of reverse-sequencing chewing cycles, during chewing on the crossbite side, significantly reduced after therapy, suggesting that not only the anatomical dental relationship but also the function, were restored (Figure 5 and 6).


Figure 6
View larger version (24K):
[in this window]
[in a new window]
  		Figure 6 Chewing pattern of one patient with a right-sided crossbite. Deliberate chewing (A) crossbite side and (B) non-crossbite side before therapy. (C) Post therapy: previous crossbite side and (D) non-crossbite side. x- and y-axis are in millimetres. The mean and standard deviation are represented by the horizontal lines.

 
No significant differences were found for the non-crossbite side following treatment.

Masticatory movements are characterized by rhythmicity and a diversity of patterns of jaw posture. Yoshino et al. (1999)Go suggested that the primary motor cortex may be involved in the initiation and control of jaw movements and that the ventral pre-motor cortex may be involved in preparation for motoneurones and play a role as a higher order motor area related to the initiation and control of jaw movements (Onozuka et al., 2002Go; Takada and Miyamoto, 2004Go).

The cortex signals the collection of neurones in the brain stem which elaborate different patterns of mastication in response to variations in inputs from the masticatory cortex and from the periphery (Katoh et al., 1982Go; Enomoto et al., 1987Go). Sensory receptors, such as muscle spindles, periodontal, and even intradental pressure receptors, exert strong influences on the chewing pattern being generated by the central pattern generator, eventually modifying both the frequency of motor neurone bursts and their intensity (Lund et al., 1999Go).

Inputs from mechanoreceptors are critical, not only for various trigeminal reflexes such as the jaw-opening reflex or the periodontal-masseter reflex but also for masticatory control (Ishii et al., 2002Go; Johnsen and Trulsson, 2003Go).

The oral environment, after orthodontic tooth movement, is different, and changes occur in the sensory inputs. In particular, stimuli from the molar mechanoreceptors may be important: the appliance used in this study prevents the upper and lower teeth from potentially opposing occlusal contacts by using stainless steel ‘resilient’ bite planes (Figures 3 and 4) and controls the static and dynamic posture of the mandible. It is therefore hypothesized that the peripheral receptors and proprioceptors play an important role in the reorganization of a new cortical chewing motor network.


   Conclusions
Top
 Summary
 Introduction
 Subjects and methods
 Results
 Discussion
 Conclusions
References
 
This study investigated the prevalence of the reverse-sequencing chewing cycles in children with a unilateral posterior crossbite before and after therapy. The results showed the following.

  1. Before therapy, the percentage of reverse-sequencing chewing cycles, on the crossbite side, was significantly higher than that on the unaffected side (P < 0.001) with both a soft and hard bolus.
  2. After therapy, the percentage of reverse-sequencing chewing cycles on the crossbite side was significantly decreased with both a soft (P < 0.001) and a hard (P < 0.001) bolus.
  3. No significant differences were found in the percentage of reverse-sequencing chewing cycles on the non-crossbite side, before or after treatment, either with a soft or hard bolus.
It is of clinical relevance, for successful orthodontic therapy, to consider not only the repositioning of teeth within the dental arches but also the effects of therapy on function. The latter can readily be determined using electrognathography.

Further investigations are required to establish a deeper understanding of these phenomena, as our knowledge of the motor control neurophysiology improves.


   Acknowledgement
 
The authors are grateful to Dario Farina of the Center for Sensory-Motor Interaction, Aalborg University, for technical assistance.


   References
Top
 Summary
 Introduction
 Subjects and methods
 Results
 Discussion
 Conclusions
 References
 

    Ben-Bassat Y, Yaffe A, Brin I, Freeman J, Ehrlich Y. (1993) Functional and morphological occlusal aspects in children treated for unilateral posterior cross-bite. European Journal of Orthodontics 15:57–63.[Abstract/Free Full Text]

    Bezier P. (1993) The first years of CAD/CAM and the UNISURF CAD system. In Piegl L (Ed.). Fundamental developments of computer-aided geometric modelling(Academic Press, London) pp. 13–26.

    Bracco P, Piancino MG, Talpone F. (2002) Unilateral crossbite: electromyographic evidence of loss of masticatory muscle coordination during mastication. European Journal of Orthodontics 4: pp. 537 (abstract).

    Bracco P and Solinas GF. (1979) Impiego e controllo della "placca funzionale bite" nel trattamento precoce del morso incrociato. Mondo Ortodontico 4:1–11.

    Brin I, et al. (1996) Skeletal and functional effects of treatment for unilateral posterior crossbite. American Journal of Orthodontics and Dentofacial Orthopedics 109:173–179.[Web of Science][Medline]

    Castroflorio T, Talpone F, Deregibus A, Piancino MG, Bracco P. (2004) Effects of a functional appliance on masticatory muscles of young adults suffering from muscle related temporomandibular disorders. Journal of Oral Rehabilitation 31:524–529.[CrossRef][Web of Science][Medline]

    Daskalogiannakis J. (2002) Glossary of orthodontic terms. (Quintessence Publishing Group, Berlin).

    Enlow D. (1986) Handbook of facial growth. (W B Saunders Company, Philadelphia)419–430.

    Enomoto S, Schwartz G, Lund JP. (1987) The effects of cortical ablation on mastication in the rabbit. Neuroscience Letters 23:162–166.

    Gazit-Rappaport T, Weinreb M, Gazit E. (2003) Quantitative evaluation of lip symmetry in functional asymmetry. European Journal of Orthodontics 25:443–450.[Abstract/Free Full Text]

    Harrison JE and Ashby D. (2003) Orthodontic treatment for posterior crossbites (Cochrane Review). The Cochrane Library, Issue 1(Update Software, Oxford).

    Ishii N, Soma K, Toda K. (2002) Response properties of periodontal mechanoreceptors in rats, in vitro.. Brain Research Bulletin 58:357–361.[CrossRef][Web of Science][Medline]

    Jankelson B. (1980) Measurement accuracy of the mandibular kinesiograph-a computerized study. Journal of Prosthetic Dentistry 44:656–666.[CrossRef][Web of Science][Medline]

    Johnsen S and Trulsson M. (2003) Receptive field properties of human periodontal afferents responding to loading of premolar and molar teeth. Journal of Neurophysiology 89:1478–1487.[Abstract/Free Full Text]

    Katoh M, Taira M, Katakura N, Nakamura Y. (1982) Cortically induced effects on trigeminal motoneurons after transection of the brainstem at the pontobulbar junction in the cat. Neuroscience Letters 33:141–146.[CrossRef][Web of Science][Medline]

    Lam PH, Sadowsky C, Omerza F. (1999) Mandibular asymmetry and condylar position in children with unilateral posterior crossbite. American Journal of Orthodontics and Dentofacial Orthopedics 115:569–575.[CrossRef][Web of Science][Medline]

    Lewin A. (1985) Electrognathographics: atlas of diagnostic procedures and interpretation. (Quintessence Publishing Co. Inc, Berlin)82–85.

    Lund JP, Scott G, Kolta A, Westberg GR. (1999) Role of cortical inputs and brainstem interneuron populations in patterning mastication. In Nakamura Y and Sessle GJ (Eds.). Neurobiology of mastication. From molecular to system approach(Elsevier Science, Tokyo) pp. 504–514.

    Moller E and Troelstrup B. (1975) Functional and morphologic asymmetry in children with unilateral cross-bite. Journal of Dental Research 5(Special issue) pp. 178.

    Nerder PH, Bakke M, Solow B. (1999) The functional shift of the mandible in unilateral posterior crossbite and the adaptation of the temporomandibular joints: a pilot study. European Journal of Orthodontics 21:155–166.[Abstract/Free Full Text]

    Onozuka M, et al. (2002) Mapping brain region activity during chewing: a functional magnetic resonance imaging study. Journal of Dental Research 81:743–746.[Abstract/Free Full Text]

    Piancino MG, et al. (2006) Surface EMG of jaw-elevator muscles and chewing pattern in complete denture wearers. Journal of Oral Rehabilitation 32:863–870.

    Pinto AS, Buschang PH, Throckmorton GS, Chen P. (2001) Morphological and positional asymmetries of young children with functional unilateral posterior crossbite. American Journal of Orthodontics and Dentofacial Orthopedics 120:513–520.[CrossRef][Web of Science][Medline]

    Pirttiniemi P, Kantomaa T, Lahtela P. (1990) Relationship between craniofacial and condyle path asymmetry in unilateral cross-bite patients. European Journal of Orthodontics 12:408–413.[Abstract/Free Full Text]

    Pirttiniemi P, Raustia A, Kantomaa T, Pyhtinen J. (1991) Relationships of bicondylar position to occlusal asymmetry. European Journal of Orthodontics 13:441–445.[Abstract/Free Full Text]

    Saitoh I, Hayasaki H, Iwase Y, Nakata M. (2002) Improvement of jaw motion following treatment of unilateral crossbite in a child with primary dentition: a case report. Journal of Craniomandibular Practice 20:129–134.

    Takada T and Miyamoto T. (2004) A fronto-parietal network for chewing gum: a study on human subjects with functional magnetic resonance imaging. Neuroscience Letters 360:137–140.[CrossRef][Web of Science][Medline]

    Throckmorton GS, Buschang PH, Hayasaki H, Santos Pinto A. (2001) Changes in the masticatory cycle following treatment of posterior unilateral crossbite in children. American Journal of Orthodontics and Dentofacial Orthopedics 120:521–529.[CrossRef][Web of Science][Medline]

    Yoshino K, Kawagishi S, Takatsuki Y, Amano N. (1999) Different roles of the primary motor and ventral premotor cortex in jaw movements. In Nakamura Y and Sessle GJ (Eds.). Neurobiology of mastication. From molecular to system approach(Elsevier Science, Tokyo) pp. 515–517.


Add to CiteULike CiteULike   Add to Connotea Connotea   Add to Del.icio.us Del.icio.us    What's this?



This Article
Right arrow Abstract Freely available
Right arrow FREE Full Text (PDF) Freely available
Right arrow All Versions of this Article:
28/5/480    most recent
cjl014v1
Right arrow Alert me when this article is cited
Right arrow Alert me if a correction is posted
Services
Right arrow Email this article to a friend
Right arrow Similar articles in this journal
Right arrow Similar articles in ISI Web of Science
Right arrow Similar articles in PubMed
Right arrow Alert me to new issues of the journal
Right arrow Add to My Personal Archive
Right arrow Download to citation manager
Right arrow Search for citing articles in:
ISI Web of Science (1)
Right arrowRequest Permissions
Google Scholar
Right arrow Articles by Piancino, M. G.
Right arrow Articles by Bracco, P.
Right arrow Search for Related Content
PubMed
Right arrow PubMed Citation
Right arrow Articles by Piancino, M. G.
Right arrow Articles by Bracco, P.
Social Bookmarking
Add to CiteULike   Add to Connotea   Add to Del.icio.us  
What's this?