Mandibular repositioning in adult patients – an alternative to surgery? A two-year follow-up

Publications

Share / Export Citation / Email / Print / Text size:

Australasian Orthodontic Journal

Australian Society of Orthodontists

Subject: Dentistry, Orthodontics & Medicine

GET ALERTS

ISSN: 2207-7472
eISSN: 2207-7480

DESCRIPTION

0
Reader(s)
0
Visit(s)
0
Comment(s)
0
Share(s)

SEARCH WITHIN CONTENT

FIND ARTICLE

Volume / Issue / page

Archive
Volume 38 (2022)
Volume 37 (2021)
Volume 36 (2020)
Volume 35 (2019)
Volume 34 (2018)
Volume 33 (2017)
Volume 32 (2016)
Volume 31 (2015)
Related articles

VOLUME 35 , ISSUE 1 (May 2019) > List of articles

Mandibular repositioning in adult patients – an alternative to surgery? A two-year follow-up

Giorgio Fiorelli / Paola Merlo / Michel Dalstra / Birte Melsen *

Citation Information : Australasian Orthodontic Journal. Volume 35, Issue 1, Pages 61-70, DOI: https://doi.org/10.21307/aoj-2020-034

License : (CC BY 4.0)

Published Online: 20-July-2021

ARTICLE

ABSTRACT

Background: Adult patients presenting with skeletal discrepancies may refuse surgical intervention.

Materials and methods: Thirty-two patients who declined orthognathic correction of their maxillo-mandibular dysplasia and who were without signs of temporomandibular dysfunction (TMD) were offered mandibular repositioning as a non-invasive alternative. Simulating a skeletal correction, it was explained that the approach was based on results described in case reports. Before commencing treatment, initial records, lateral and frontal head films, study casts and photos were obtained (T0) and the mandible was repositioned to camouflage a retrognathic skeletal discrepancy or a mandibular transverse asymmetry by means of an occlusal build-up using Triad™ gel.

Results: Three months later (T1), 23 patients had adapted to the new occlusion reflected by an absence of functional disturbance and without fracture of the composite occlusal build-up. Mandibular position in these patients was maintained by additional orthodontic treatment and an adjustment of the occlusion to the built-up postured position (T1). The skeletal changes occurring during repositioning were assessed on sagittal and frontal head films while intra-articular changes occurring during a two-year follow-up period (T2) were evaluated on images constructed from CBCT scans. No significant change, either in the direction of relapse or in the direction of further normalisation of condylar position, were observed during the two-year observation period.

Conclusion: Mandibular repositioning is a non-invasive intervention that may be considered a valid alternative to surgery in selected patients. Morphological variables from the radiographs taken at T0 and the results of the initial clinical evaluation of dysfunction yielded only vague and insignificant indicators regarding the predictability of the adaptation. A CBCT scan at T0 might have contributed to the identification of the patients who would likely accept the repositioning.

Content not available PDF Share

FIGURES & TABLES

REFERENCES

1. Shen G, Hägg U, Darendeliler M. Skeletal effects of bite jumping therapy on the mandible - removable vs. fixed functional appliances. Orthod Craniofac Res 2005;8:2-10.

2. McNamara JA Jr, Bryan FA. Long-term mandibular adaptations to protrusive function: an experimental study in Macaca mulatta. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop 1987;92:98-108.

3. Marsico E, Gatto E, Burrascano M, Matarese G, Cordasco G. Effectiveness of orthodontic treatment with functional appliances on mandibular growth in the short term. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop 2011;139:24-36.

4. Ruf S, Pancherz H. Temporomandibular joint remodeling in adolescents and young adults during Herbst treatment: A prospective longitudinal magnetic resonance imaging and cephalometric radiographic investigation. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop 1999;115:607-18.

5. Dawson PE. New definition for relating occlusion to varying conditions of the temporomandibular joint. J Prosthet Dent 1995;74:619-27.

6. Dawson PE. A classification system for occlusions that relates maximal intercuspation to the position and condition of the temporomandibular joints. J Prosthet Dent 1996;75:60-6.

7. Ueki K, Moroi A, Sotobori M, Ishihara Y, Marukawa K, Takatsuka S et al. A hypothesis on the desired postoperative position of the condyle in orthognathic surgery: a review. Oral Surg Oral Med Oral Pathol Oral Radiol 2012;114:567-76.

8. Tallgren A, Melsen B, Hansen MA. An electromyographic and roentgen cephalometric study of occlusal morphofunctional disharmony in children. Am J Orthod 1979;76:394-409.

9. Egermark-Eriksson I, Carlsson GE, Ingervall B. Function and dysfunction of the masticatory system in individuals with dual bite. Eur J Orthod 1979;1:107-17.

10. Mazzone N, Matteini C, Incisivo V, Belli E. Temporomandibular joint disorders and maxillomandibular malformations: role of condylar “repositionin” plate. J Craniofac Surg 2009;20:909-15.

11. Møller E, Bakke M. Occlusal harmony and disharmony: frauds in clinical dentistry? Int Dent J 1988;38:7-18.

12. Zhang FY, Wang XG, Dong J, Zhang JF, Lü YL. Effect of occlusal splints for the management of patients with myofascial pain: a randomized, controlled, double-blind study. Chin Med J (Engl) 2013;126:2270-5.

13. Ingervall B, Thilander B. Activity of temporal and masseter muscles in children with a lateral forced bite. Angle Orthod 1975;45:249-58.

14. Ingervall B, Egermark-Eriksson I. Function of temporal and masseter muscles in individuals with dual bite. Angle Orthod 1979;49:131- 40.

15. Ruf S, Pancherz H. Temporomandibular joint remodeling in adolescents and young adults during Herbst treatment: A prospective longitudinal magnetic resonance imaging and cephalometric radiographic investigation. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop 1999;115:607-18.

16. Ruf S, Pancherz H. Does bite-jumping damage the TMJ? A prospective longitudinal clinical and MRI study of Herbst patients. Angle Orthod 2000;70:183-99.

17. Pullinger AG, Seligman DA, Gornbein JA. A multiple logistic regression analysis of the risk and relative odds of temporomandibular disorders as a function of common occlusal features. J Dent Res 1993;72:968-79.

18. Seligman DA, Pullinger AG. A multiple stepwise logistic regression analysis of trauma history and 16 other history and dental cofactors in females with temporomandibular disorders. J Orofac Pain 1996;10:351-61.

19. Okeson JP. Determinants of Occlusal Morphology. In: Okeson JP, ed. Management of temporomandibular disorders and occlusion. St Louis: Elsevier Science Publishers, 2013.

20. Murray G. The lateral pterygoid muscle: Function and dysfunction. Semin Orthod 2012;18:44-50.

21. Vitral RW, da Silva Campos MJ, Rodrigues AF, Fraga MR. Temporomandibular joint and normal occlusion: Is there anything singular about it? A computed tomographic evaluation. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop 2011;140:18-24.

22. Rodrigues AF, Fraga MR, Vitral RW. Computed tomography evaluation of the temporomandibular joint in Class II Division 1 and Class III malocclusion patients: condylar symmetry and condylefossa relationship. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop 2009;136:199- 206.

23. Vitral RW, Telles Cde S. Computed tomography evaluation of temporomandibular joint alterations in class II Division 1 subdivision patients: condylar symmetry. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop 2002;121:369-75.

24. Okeson JP. History of and examination for temporomandubular disorders. In: Okeson JP, ed. Management of temporomandibular disorders and occlusion. St Loius: Elsevier, 2013.

25. Dahlberg G. Statistical methods for medical and biological students. New York: Interscience publications, 1940.

26. Shrout PE, Fleiss JL. Intraclass correlations: uses in assessing rater reliability. Psychol Bull 1979;86:420-8.

27. de Leeuw R. Policy statements regarding Temporomandibular Disorders (TMD). 2015. American Association for Dental Reseach. 1-1-2014.

28. Lund K. Mandibular growth and remodelling processes after condylar fracture. A longitudinal roentgencephalometric study. Acta Odontol Scand Suppl 1974;32:3-117.

EXTRA FILES

COMMENTS