-
Medicina (Kaunas, Lithuania) Dec 2021: Tobacco is today the single most preventable cause of death, being associated with countless diseases, including cancer and neurological, cardiovascular, and... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
: Tobacco is today the single most preventable cause of death, being associated with countless diseases, including cancer and neurological, cardiovascular, and respiratory diseases. Smoking also brings negative consequences to oral health, potentially impairing treatment with dental implants. The present review aimed to evaluate the influence of smoking on dental implant failure rates and marginal bone loss (MBL). : Electronic search was undertaken in three databases, plus a manual search of journals. Meta-analyses were performed, in addition to meta-regressions, in order to verify how the odds ratio (OR) and MBL were associated with follow-up time. : The review included 292 publications. Altogether, there were 35,511 and 114,597 implants placed in smokers and in non-smokers, respectively. Pairwise meta-analysis showed that implants in smokers had a higher failure risk in comparison with non-smokers (OR 2.402, < 0.001). The difference in implant failure between the groups was statistically significant in the maxilla (OR 2.910, < 0.001), as well as in the mandible (OR 2.866, < 0.001). The MBL mean difference (MD) between the groups was 0.580 mm ( < 0.001). There was an estimated decrease of 0.001 in OR ( = 0.566) and increase of 0.004 mm ( = 0.279) in the MBL MD between groups for every additional month of follow-up, although without statistical significance. Therefore, there was no clear influence of the follow-up on the effect size (OR) and on MBL MD between groups. : Implants placed in smokers present a 140.2% higher risk of failure than implants placed in non-smokers.
Topics: Dental Implants; Humans; Mandible; Maxilla; Smokers; Smoking
PubMed: 35056347
DOI: 10.3390/medicina58010039 -
Clinical Oral Investigations Sep 2016The aim of this systematic review was to evaluate the efficacy of different soft tissue augmentation/correction methods in terms of increasing the peri-implant width of... (Review)
Review
OBJECTIVES
The aim of this systematic review was to evaluate the efficacy of different soft tissue augmentation/correction methods in terms of increasing the peri-implant width of keratinized mucosa (KM) and/or gain of soft tissue volume during second-stage surgery.
MATERIALS AND METHODS
Screening of two databases, MEDLINE (PubMed) and EMBASE (OVID), and hand search of related articles, were performed. Human studies reporting on soft tissue augmentation/correction methods around submucosally osseointegrated implants during second-stage surgery up to July 31, 2015 were considered. Quality assessment of the selected full-text articles was performed according to the Cochrane collaboration's tool to assess the risk of bias.
RESULTS
Overall, eight prospective studies (risk of bias: high) and two case series (risk of bias: high) were included. Depending on the surgical technique and graft material used, the enlargement of keratinized tissue (KT) ranged between -0.20 and 9.35 mm. An apically positioned partial-thickness flap/vestibuloplasty (APPTF/VP) in combination with a free gingival graft (FGG) or a xenogeneic graft material (XCM) was most effective. Applying a roll envelope flap (REF) or an APPTF in combination with a subepithelial connective tissue graft (SCTG), mean increases in soft tissue volumes of 2.41 and 3.10 mm, respectively, were achieved. Due to the heterogeneity of study designs, no meta-analysis could be performed.
CONCLUSIONS
Within the limitations of this review, regarding the enlargement of peri-implant KT, the APPTF in the maxilla and the APPTF/VP in combination with FGG or XCM in the lower and upper jaw seem to provide acceptable outcomes. To augment peri-implant soft tissue volume REF in the maxilla or APPTF + SCTG in the lower and upper jaw appear to be reliable treatment options.
CLINICAL RELEVANCE
The localization in the jaw and the clinical situation are crucial for the decision which second-stage procedure should be applied.
Topics: Connective Tissue; Dental Implants; Gingiva; Gingivoplasty; Humans; Jaw, Edentulous, Partially; Surgical Flaps; Vestibuloplasty
PubMed: 27041111
DOI: 10.1007/s00784-016-1815-2 -
Clinical Oral Implants Research Feb 2016The aim of this systematic review was to analyze post-loading implant loss for implant-supported prostheses in edentulous jaws, regarding a potential impact of implant... (Review)
Review
OBJECTIVES
The aim of this systematic review was to analyze post-loading implant loss for implant-supported prostheses in edentulous jaws, regarding a potential impact of implant location (maxilla vs. mandible), implant number per patient, type of prosthesis (removable vs. fixed), and type of attachment system (screw-retained, ball vs. bar vs. telescopic crown).
MATERIAL AND METHODS
A systematic literature search for randomized-controlled trials (RCTs) or prospective studies was conducted within PubMed, Cochrane Library, and Embase. Quality assessment of the included studies was carried out, and the review was structured according to PRISMA. Implant loss and corresponding 3- and 5-year survival rates were estimated by means of a Poisson regression model with total exposure time as offset.
RESULTS
After title, abstract, and full-text screening, 54 studies were included for qualitative analyses. Estimated 5-year survival rates of implants were 97.9% [95% CI 97.4; 98.4] in the maxilla and 98.9% [95% CI 98.7; 99.1] in the mandible. Corresponding implant loss rates per 100 implant years were significantly higher in the maxilla (0.42 [95% CI 0.33; 0.53] vs. 0.22 [95% CI 0.17; 0.27]; P = 0.0001). Implant loss rates for fixed restorations were significantly lower compared to removable restorations (0.23 [95% CI 0.18; 0.29] vs. 0.35 [95% CI 0.28; 0.44]; P = 0.0148). Four implants and a fixed restoration in the mandible resulted in significantly higher implant loss rates compared to five or more implants with a fixed restoration. The analysis of one implant and a mandibular overdenture also revealed higher implant loss rates than an overdenture on two implants. The same (lower implant number = higher implant loss rate) applied when comparing 2 vs. 4 implants and a mandibular overdenture. Implant loss rates for maxillary overdentures on <4 implants were significantly higher than for four implants (7.22 [95% CI 5.41; 9.64] vs. 2.31 [1.56; 3.42]; P < 0.0001).
CONCLUSIONS
Implant location, type of restoration, and implant number do have an influence on the estimated implant loss rate. Consistent reporting of clinical studies is necessary and high-quality studies are needed to confirm the present results.
Topics: Dental Implantation, Endosseous; Dental Prosthesis Design; Dental Prosthesis, Implant-Supported; Dental Restoration Failure; Denture, Overlay; Denture, Partial, Fixed; Humans; Jaw, Edentulous
PubMed: 25664612
DOI: 10.1111/clr.12531 -
Orphanet Journal of Rare Diseases Oct 2022The objective of this systematic review was to determine the orthodontic and dentofacial orthopedic treatments carried out in patients with ectodermal dysplasia to... (Review)
Review
OBJECTIVE
The objective of this systematic review was to determine the orthodontic and dentofacial orthopedic treatments carried out in patients with ectodermal dysplasia to facilitate functional and aesthetic rehabilitation.
METHODS
The systematic review was conducted in accordance with the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-analysis statement. We systematically searched PubMed, Web of Science, Scopus, Scielo, LILACS, EBSCOhost and Embase databases up to 6 January 2022. We included articles describing patients with any type of ectodermal dysplasia who received orthodontic or dentofacial orthopedic treatment to facilitate functional and aesthetic oral rehabilitation. The search was not restricted by language or year of publication. The quality of the studies was assessed using the Joanna Briggs Institute Quality Assessment Scale of the University of Adelaide for case series and case reports. The review was registered at the University of York Centre for reviews (CRD42021288030).
RESULTS
Of the initial 403 studies found, 29 met the inclusion criteria. After applying the quality scale, 23 were left for review-21 case reports and 2 case series. The initial age of patients ranged from 34 months to 24 years. Thirteen studies were on hypohidrotic and/or anhidrotic ectodermal dysplasia, of which two were X-chromosome linked. In one study, the patient had Wiktop syndrome, and in nine the type of ectodermal dysplasia was not specified. The duration of treatment was 7 weeks to 10 years. The treatments described were: fixed orthodontic appliances or simple acrylic plates designed for tooth movement, including leveling and aligning, closing of diastemata, retraction of impacted teeth in the dental arch; clear aligners; fixed and/or removable appliances for the correction of skeletal and/or dentoalveolar relationships; palatal expanders in combination with face masks for orthopedic traction of the maxilla; and orthognathic surgery. Only three studies provided cephalometric data.
CONCLUSION
The level of evidence of the articles reviewed was low and most orthopedic and dentofacial orthodontic treatments described were focused on correcting dental malpositioning and jaw asymmetries and not on stimulating growth from an early age. Studies with greater scientific evidence are needed to determine the best treatment for these patients.
Topics: Child, Preschool; Ectodermal Dysplasia; Ectodermal Dysplasia 1, Anhidrotic; Humans; Tooth Movement Techniques
PubMed: 36253866
DOI: 10.1186/s13023-022-02533-0 -
Journal of Periodontology Nov 2015There is a need for studying bone characteristics systematically for a better understanding of planning (i.e., timing of placement and loading) and outcomes of implant... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
BACKGROUND
There is a need for studying bone characteristics systematically for a better understanding of planning (i.e., timing of placement and loading) and outcomes of implant therapy. Therefore, the aim of the present review is to evaluate alveolar bone microarchitecture and its modifiers.
METHODS
Two independent reviewers conducted electronic and manual literature searches in several databases, including MEDLINE, EMBASE, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, and Cochrane Oral Health Group Trials Register, for articles published up to February 2015 reporting alveolar bone microstructure. The random-effect model was applied to calculate the weighted mean (WM) of total bone volume (TBV), which has a range from 0 to 1. TBV was stratified by anatomic locations, atrophic status, and types of specimens. Correlations between TBV and other bone-related parameters were also analyzed.
RESULTS
A total of 800 articles were initially identified. After abstract/full-text review, 24 articles were included in the systematic review, of which 23 were also included in the quantitative analysis. The WM TBV was 0.365 (95% confidence interval = 0.278 to 0.452), higher in the maxillary/mandibular anterior sites than the maxillary/mandibular posterior sites. However, great variations existed within each anatomic location. Additionally, WM TBV was lower in atrophic sites than non-atrophic sites. TBV was correlated negatively with trabecular spacing (R(2) = 0.11).
CONCLUSIONS
The present systematic review suggests that the TBV might not be different between the defined anatomic locations. However, the atrophy status might influence TBV.
Topics: Dental Implantation, Endosseous; Dental Implants; Humans; Mandible; Maxilla; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic
PubMed: 26177631
DOI: 10.1902/jop.2015.150263 -
Clinical Oral Investigations Nov 2022This systematic review evaluated the available evidence regarding the skeletal, dentoalveolar, and soft tissue effects of orthodontic camouflage (OC) versus... (Review)
Review
OBJECTIVE
This systematic review evaluated the available evidence regarding the skeletal, dentoalveolar, and soft tissue effects of orthodontic camouflage (OC) versus orthodontic-orthognathic surgical (OOS) treatment in borderline class III malocclusion patients.
METHODS
Eligibility criteria. The included studies were clinical trials and/or follow-up observational studies (retrospective and prospective). Information sources. PubMed, Scopus, Science Direct, Web of Science, Cochrane, and LILACS were searched up to October 2021. Risk of bias. Downs and Black quality assessment checklist was used. Synthesis of results. The outcomes were the skeletal, dentoalveolar, and soft tissue changes obtained from pre- and post-cephalometric measurements.
RESULTS
Included studies. Out of 2089 retrieved articles, 6 were eligible and thus included in the subsequent analyses. Their overall risk of bias was moderate. Outcome results. The results are presented as pre- and post-treatment values or mean changes in both groups. Two studies reported significant retrusion of the maxillary and mandibular bases in OC, in contrast to significant maxillary protrusion and mandibular retrusion with increased ANB angle in OOS. Regarding the vertical jaw relation, one study reported a significant decrease in mandibular plane inclination in OC and a significant increase in OOS. Most of the included studies reported a significant proclination in the maxillary incisors in both groups. Three studies reported a significant proclination of the mandibular incisors in OOS, while four studies reported retroclination in OC.
CONCLUSION
Interpretation. The OSS has a protrusive effect on the maxillary base, retrusive effect on the mandibular base, and thus improvement in the sagittal relationship accompanied with a clockwise rotational effect on the mandibular plane. The OC has more proclination effect on the maxillary incisors and retroclination effect on the mandibular incisors compared to OOS. Limitation. Meta-analysis was not possible due to considerable variations among the included studies. Owing to the fact that some important data in the included studies were missing, conducting further studies with more standardized methodologies is highly urgent. Registration. The protocol for this systematic review was registered at the International Prospective Register of Systematic Reviews (PROSPERO, No.: CRD42020199591).
CLINICAL RELEVANCE
The common features including skeletal, dental, and soft tissue characteristics of borderline class III malocclusion cases make it more difficult to select the most appropriate treatment modality that can be either OC or OOS. The availability of high-level evidence-systematic reviews-makes the clinical decision much more clear and based on scientific basis rather than personal preference.
Topics: Humans; Retrospective Studies; Malocclusion, Angle Class III; Orthognathic Surgical Procedures; Cephalometry; Maxilla; Mandible; Malocclusion, Angle Class II
PubMed: 36098813
DOI: 10.1007/s00784-022-04685-6 -
The Cochrane Database of Systematic... Jul 2022Medication-related osteonecrosis of the jaw (MRONJ) is a severe adverse reaction experienced by some individuals to certain medicines commonly used in the treatment of... (Review)
Review
BACKGROUND
Medication-related osteonecrosis of the jaw (MRONJ) is a severe adverse reaction experienced by some individuals to certain medicines commonly used in the treatment of cancer and osteoporosis (e.g. bisphosphonates, denosumab, and antiangiogenic agents), and involves the progressive destruction of bone in the mandible or maxilla. Depending on the drug, its dosage, and the duration of exposure, this adverse drug reaction may occur rarely (e.g. following the oral administration of bisphosphonate or denosumab treatments for osteoporosis, or antiangiogenic agent-targeted cancer treatment), or commonly (e.g. following intravenous bisphosphonate for cancer treatment). MRONJ is associated with significant morbidity, adversely affects quality of life (QoL), and is challenging to treat. This is an update of our review first published in 2017.
OBJECTIVES
To assess the effects of interventions versus no treatment, placebo, or an active control for the prophylaxis of MRONJ in people exposed to antiresorptive or antiangiogenic drugs. To assess the effects of non-surgical or surgical interventions (either singly or in combination) versus no treatment, placebo, or an active control for the treatment of people with manifest MRONJ.
SEARCH METHODS
Cochrane Oral Health's Information Specialist searched four bibliographic databases up to 16 June 2021 and used additional search methods to identify published, unpublished, and ongoing studies. SELECTION CRITERIA: We included randomised controlled trials (RCTs) comparing one modality of intervention with another for the prevention or treatment of MRONJ. For 'prophylaxis of MRONJ', the primary outcome of interest was the incidence of MRONJ; secondary outcomes were QoL, time-to-event, and rate of complications and side effects of the intervention. For 'treatment of established MRONJ', the primary outcome of interest was healing of MRONJ; secondary outcomes were QoL, recurrence, and rate of complications and side effects of the intervention.
DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS
Two review authors independently screened the search results, extracted the data, and assessed the risk of bias in the included studies. For dichotomous outcomes, we reported the risk ratio (RR) (or rate ratio) and 95% confidence intervals (CIs).
MAIN RESULTS
We included 13 RCTs (1668 participants) in this updated review, of which eight were new additions. The studies were clinically diverse and examined very different interventions, so meta-analyses could not be performed. We have low or very low certainty about available evidence on interventions for the prophylaxis or treatment of MRONJ. Prophylaxis of MRONJ Five RCTs examined different interventions to prevent the occurrence of MRONJ. One RCT compared standard care with regular dental examinations at three-month intervals and preventive treatments (including antibiotics before dental extractions and the use of techniques for wound closure that avoid exposure and contamination of bone) in men with metastatic prostate cancer treated with zoledronic acid. The intervention seemed to lower the risk of MRONJ (RR 0.10, 95% CI 0.02 to 0.39, 253 participants). Secondary outcomes were not evaluated. Dentoalveolar surgery is considered a common predisposing event for developing MRONJ and five RCTs tested various preventive measures to reduce the risk of postoperative MRONJ. The studies evaluated plasma rich in growth factors inserted into the postextraction alveolus in addition to standardised medical and surgical care versus standardised medical and surgical care alone (RR 0.08, 95% CI 0.00 to 1.51, 176 participants); delicate surgery and closure by primary intention versus non-traumatic tooth avulsion and closure by secondary intention (no case of postoperative MRONJ in either group); primary closure of the extraction socket with a mucoperiosteal flap versus application of platelet-rich fibrin without primary wound closure (no case of postoperative MRONJ in either group); and subperiosteal wound closure versus epiperiosteal wound closure (RR 0.09, 95% CI 0.00 to 1.56, 132 participants). Treatment of MRONJ Eight RCTs examined different interventions for the treatment of established MRONJ; that is, the effect on MRONJ cure rates. One RCT analysed hyperbaric oxygen (HBO) treatment used in addition to standard care (antiseptic rinses, antibiotics, and surgery) compared with standard care alone (at last follow-up: RR 1.56, 95% CI 0.77 to 3.18, 46 participants). Healing rates from MRONJ were not significantly different between autofluorescence-guided bone surgery and conventional bone surgery (RR 1.08, 95% CI 0.85 to 1.37, 30 participants). Another RCT that compared autofluorescence- with tetracycline fluorescence-guided sequestrectomy for the surgical treatment of MRONJ found no significant difference (at one-year follow-up: RR 1.05, 95% CI 0.86 to 1.30, 34 participants). Three RCTs investigated the effect of growth factors and autologous platelet concentrates on healing rates of MRONJ: platelet-rich fibrin after bone surgery versus surgery alone (RR 1.05, 95% CI 0.90 to 1.22, 47 participants), bone morphogenetic protein-2 together with platelet-rich fibrin versus platelet-rich fibrin alone (RR 1.10, 95% CI 0.94 to 1.29, 55 participants), and concentrated growth factor and primary wound closure versus primary wound closure only (RR 1.38, 95% CI 0.81 to 2.34, 28 participants). Two RCTs focused on pharmacological treatment with teriparatide: teriparatide 20 μg daily versus placebo in addition to standard care (RR 0.96, 95% CI 0.31 to 2.95, 33 participants) and teriparatide 56.5 μg weekly versus teriparatide 20 μg daily in addition to standard care (RR 1.60, 95% CI 0.25 to 1.44, 12 participants).
AUTHORS CONCLUSIONS
Prophylaxis of medication-related osteonecrosis of the jaw One open-label RCT provided some evidence that dental examinations at three-month intervals and preventive treatments may be more effective than standard care for reducing the incidence of medication-related osteonecrosis of the jaw (MRONJ) in individuals taking intravenous bisphosphonates for advanced cancer. We assessed the certainty of the evidence to be very low. There is insufficient evidence to either claim or refute a benefit of the interventions tested for prophylaxis of MRONJ in patients with antiresorptive therapy undergoing dentoalveolar surgery. Although some interventions suggested a potential large effect, the studies were underpowered to show statistical significance, and replication of the results in larger studies is pending. Treatment of medication-related osteonecrosis of the jaw The available evidence is insufficient to either claim or refute a benefit, in addition to standard care, of any of the interventions studied for the treatment of MRONJ.
Topics: Anti-Bacterial Agents; Denosumab; Diphosphonates; Humans; Male; Osteonecrosis; Osteoporosis; Teriparatide
PubMed: 35866376
DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD012432.pub3 -
International Journal of Implant... Jul 2023The purpose of this systematic review was to assess the evidence regarding the indications for placement of zygomatic implants to rehabilitate edentulous maxillae. (Review)
Review
PURPOSE
The purpose of this systematic review was to assess the evidence regarding the indications for placement of zygomatic implants to rehabilitate edentulous maxillae.
MATERIAL AND METHODS
A focused question using the PIO format was developed, questioning "in patients in need of an implant-supported rehabilitation of the edentulous maxillae, what are the indications for the use of zygomatic implants''. The primary information analyzed and collected was a clear description of the indication for the use of zygomatic implants.
RESULTS
A total of 1266 records were identified through database searching. The full-text review was conducted for 117 papers, and 10 were selected to be included in this review. Zygomatic implant indications were extreme bone atrophy or deficiency secondary to different factors. The quad zygoma concept (two zygomatic implants bilaterally placed and splinted) was applied to 107 patients, the classic zygoma concept (one zygomatic implant bilaterally placed and splinted to standard anterior implants) was used in 88 patients, and the unilateral concept (one zygomatic implant on one side, splinted with one or more conventional implants) was employed in 14 patients.
CONCLUSIONS
The main indication for the use of zygomatic implants was considered extreme maxillary bone atrophy, resulting from many factors. The clear definition of what was considered "extreme bone atrophy" is not uniquely defined in each paper. Further studies are needed to develop clear indications for zygomatic implants.
Topics: Humans; Dental Implants; Atrophy; Databases, Factual; Medicine; Mouth, Edentulous
PubMed: 37391575
DOI: 10.1186/s40729-023-00480-4 -
Journal of Clinical Medicine Nov 2022Background: Our study aimed to systematically summarize the dentoskeletal effects of Herbst appliance; Forsus fatigue resistance device; and Class II elastics in... (Review)
Review
Background: Our study aimed to systematically summarize the dentoskeletal effects of Herbst appliance; Forsus fatigue resistance device; and Class II elastics in adolescent Class II malocclusion. Methods: Five databases; unpublished literature; and reference lists were last searched in August 2022. Randomized clinical trials and observational studies of at least 10 Class II growing patients that assessed dentoskeletal effects through cephalometric/CBCT superimpositions were eligible. The included studies quality was assessed with the RoB 2 and ROBINS-I tools. A random-effects model meta-analysis was performed. Heterogeneity was explored with subgroup and sensitivity analyses. Results: Among nine studies (298 patients); two-to-three studies were included in each meta-analysis. Less post-treatment upper incisor retroclination (<2) and no overbite; overjet; SNA; SNB; and lower incisor inclination differences were found between Herbst/Forsus and Class II elastics. No differences in maxilla; condyle; glenoid fossa; and most mandibular changes were found between Herbst and Class II elastics; except for a greater 1.5 mm increase in mandibular length and right mandibular ramus height (1.6 mm) with Herbst. Conclusions: Herbst and Class II elastics corrected the molar relationship; but Herbst moved the lower molars more mesially. Apart from an additional mandibular length increase; no other dental and anteroposterior skeletal difference was found. Forsus was more effective in molar correction; overjet reduction; and upper incisor control than Class II elastics. Trial registration number OSF: 10.17605/OSF.IO/8TK3R.
PubMed: 36498570
DOI: 10.3390/jcm11236995 -
BMC Oral Health Mar 2021Mouth breathing is closely related to the facial skeletal development and malocclusion. The purpose of this systematic review and meta-analysis was to assess the effect... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
BACKGROUND
Mouth breathing is closely related to the facial skeletal development and malocclusion. The purpose of this systematic review and meta-analysis was to assess the effect of mouth breathing on facial skeletal development and malocclusion in children.
METHODS
An electronic search in PubMed, the Cochrane Library, Medline, Web of Science, EMBASE and Sigle through February 23rd, 2020, was conducted. Inclusion criteria were children under 18 years of age with maxillofacial deformities due to mouth breathing. The risk of bias in nonrandomized studies of interventions (ROBINS-I) tool for controlled clinical trials. The Grading of Recommendation, Assessment, Development and Evaluation (GRADE) approach was used for the quality assessment. The included indicators were SNA, SNB, ANB, SN-OP, SN-PP, PP-MP, SNGoGn, MP-H, 1-NA, 1. NA, 1. NB, 1-NB, Overjet, Overbite, SPAS, PAS, and C3-H. Data concerning the mean difference in mesial molar movement and extent of canine retraction were extracted for statistical analysis. The mean differences and 95% confidence intervals were analyzed for continuous data. Review Manager 5.3, was used to synthesize various parameters associated with the impact of mouth breathing on facial skeletal development and malocclusion.
RESULTS
Following full-text evaluations for eligibility, 10 studies were included in the final quantitative synthesis. In Sagittal direction, SNA (MD: - 1.63, P < 0.0001), SNB (MD: - 1.96, P < 0.0001) in mouth-breathing children was lower than that in nasal-breathing children. ANB (MD: 0.90, P < 0.0001), 1. NA (MD: 1.96, P = 0.009), 1-NA (MD: 0.66, P = 0.004), and 1-NB (MD: 1.03, P < 0.0001) showed higher values in children with mouth breathing. In vertical direction, SN-PP (MD: 0.68, P = 0.0050), SN-OP (MD: 3.05, P < 0.0001), PP-MP (MD: 4.92, P < 0.0001) and SNGoGn (MD: 4.10, P < 0.0001) were higher in mouth-breathing individuals. In airway, SPAS (MD: - 3.48, P = 0.0009), PAS (MD: - 2.11, P < 0.0001), and C3-H (MD: - 1.34, P < 0.0001) were lower in mouth breathing group.
CONCLUSIONS
The results showed that the mandible and maxilla rotated backward and downward, and the occlusal plane was steep. In addition, mouth breathing presented a tendency of labial inclination of the upper anterior teeth. Airway stenosis was common in mouth-breathing children. Trial registration [email protected], registration number CRD42019129198.
Topics: Adolescent; Cephalometry; Child; Face; Humans; Malocclusion, Angle Class II; Mandible; Mouth Breathing; Overbite
PubMed: 33691678
DOI: 10.1186/s12903-021-01458-7