4.3 Article

Condyle fossa relationship associated with functional posterior crossbite, before and after rapid maxillary expansion

Journal

ANGLE ORTHODONTIST
Volume 82, Issue 6, Pages 1040-1046

Publisher

E H ANGLE EDUCATION RESEARCH FOUNDATION, INC
DOI: 10.2319/112211-725.1

Keywords

Computed tomography; Crossbite; Condyle fossa; TMJ

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Objective: To investigate condylar symmetry and condyle fossa relationships in subjects with functional posterior crossbite comparing findings before and after rapid maxillary expansion (RME) treatment through low-dose computed tomography (CT). Materials and Methods: Twenty-six patients (14 girls and 12 boys, mean age 9.6 +/- 1.4 years) with functional posterior crossbite (FPXB) diagnosis underwent rapid palatal expansion with a Hyrax appliance. Patients' temporomandibular joints (TMJ) underwent multislice CT scans before rapid palatal expansion (TO) and after (Ti). Joint spaces were compared with those of a control sample of 13 subjects (7 girls and 5 boys, mean age 11 +/- 0.6 years). Results: Anterior space (AS), superior space (SS), and posterior space (PS) joint space measurements at TO between the FPXB side and contralateral side demonstrated no statistically significant differences. After RME treatment (Ti), all three joint spaces increased on both the FPXB side and the non-crossbite side. However, differences were statistically significant only for the SS when comparing the two sides at Ti. SS increased more than AS and PS in the non-crossbite condyle (0.28 rtim) and FPXB condyle (0.37 mm), and PS increased only on the FPXB side (0.34 mm). Conclusions: There were no statistically significant differences in condyle position within the glenoid fossa between the FPXB and non-crossbite side before treatment. Increases in joint spaces were observed after treatment with RME on both sides. These changes were, however, of small amounts. (Angle Orthod. 2012;82:1040-1046.)

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.3
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available