2019 The Assessment of Resting Tongue Posture in Different Sagittal Skeletal Patterns

The Assessment of Resting Tongue Posture in Different Sagittal Skeletal Patterns

Admin Dental Press

V24N03 | 2019 | Original Article | Pages 55 to 63

Farheen Fatima, Mubassar Fida

Tongue. Jaw relationship. Dental arch.

Introduction: Resting tongue posture affects the surrounding structures and, theoretically, may result in altered arch form and jaw relationship. Objective: The objective of the present study was to investigate the association between resting tongue posture as observed in lateral cephalometric radiograph, sagittal jaw relationship and arch form. Methods: The study was conducted on pretreatment lateral cephalograms and dental casts of 90 subjects. Subjects were equally divided into three groups, based on sagittal jaw relationship (Class I, II and III). Tongue posture was determined in terms of tongue-to-palate distances at six different points (distances 1 to 6) using ViewPro-X software, according to the method described by Graber et al in 1997. The arch widths (intercanine and intermolar widths) were evaluated on pretreatment dental casts. Results: Tongue-to-palate distances were found to be comparable among different study groups. Significant differences were found in intercanine and intermolar widths at the cuspal and gingival levels among the study groups, except for intercanine width at cuspal level in maxilla and intermolar width at cuspal level in mandible. Moderate positive correlation was found between arch widths ratios at distances 3 and 4 in skeletal Class III group. Effect size was found to be moderate to large in different sagittal skeletal patterns and arch widths. Conclusion: The results of the current study showed no significant differences in the resting tongue posture among the groups, and moderate to weak correlation between tongue posture and dental arch widths.

Fatima F, Fida M. The Assessment of Resting Tongue Posture in Different Sagittal Skeletal Patterns. Dental Press J Orthod. 2019 May-June; 24(3):55-63. DOI: //doi.org/10.1590/2177-6709.24.3.055-063.oar

PDF

Related articles