The Influences of Incisor Positional Changes Due to Fıxed Appliance Therapy on Tongue Position

Abstract

Purpose: The positional changes of the tongue due to fixed appliance therapy, the relationship between the positional changes of lower incisor, the tongue and the attribution of this relationship was investigated. Materials & Methods: In this retrospective study, lateral cephalograms of pre and posttreatment records were evaluated. According to the mathematical differences of 1-NB parameters, subgroups namely; retrusion and protrusion groups were formed. Pretreatment measurements were performed from horizontal and vertical reference planes defined, posttreatment measurements were evaluated with the transportation of these reference lines using the total structural superimpositional method. The positional and linear dimensional changes of the tongue were evaluated using Rakosi tongue analysis with a modification of the reference line. Cephalometric tongue images were digitized and the tongue area were calculated. Results: The positional changes of the tip of the tongue were concordant with the positional changes of the lower incisor, elevation of the dorsum of the tongue and stoopness of the base of the tongue occured in the retrusion group. Tongue area increased in both groups. Conclusion: The tip of the tongue followed the movement of the lower incisor altered with fixed appliance therapy in sagittal direction. In cases where upper incisor retraction is planned, tongue tip should be expected to adapt by rising vertically. Keywords: incisors, fixed appliance therapy, cephalometric tongue position, Rakosi tongue analysis, tongue area.

Keywords

• cephalometric tongue position
• fixed appliance therapy
• incisors
• Rakosi tongue analysis
• tongue area

References

1. Christiansen RL, Evans CA, Sue SK. Resting tongue pressures. Angle Orthod. 1979;49(2):92–97. Cleall JF. Deglutition: A Study Of Form And Function. Am J Orthod. 1965;51:566–594.
2. Subtelny JD. Malocclusions, orthodontic corrections and orofacial muscle adaptation. Angle Orthod. 1970;40(3):170–201.
3. Guay AH, Maxwell DL, Beecher R. A radiographic study of tongue posture at rest and during the phonation of /s/ in class III malocclusion. Angle Orthod. 1978;48(1):10–22.
4. Ruan WH, Chen MD, Gu ZY, Lu Y, Su JM, Guo Q. Muscular forces exerted on the normal deciduous dentition. Angle Orthod. 2005;75(5):785–790.
5. Richardson ME. Late lower arch crowding in relation to soft tissue maturation. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop. 1997;112(2):159–164. doi:10.1016/s0889-5406(97)70241-5.
6. Björk A, Skieller V. Normal and abnormal growth of the mandible. A synthesis of longitudinal cephalometric implant studies over a period of 25 years. Eur J Orthod. 1983;5(1):1–46. doi:10.1093/ejo/5.1.1.
7. Rákosi T. [Radiocephalometric studies on the changes of the tongue position in orthodontic treatment]. Fortschr Kieferorthop. 1966;27(2):234–246. doi:10.1007/bf02163911.
8. Baker R. The tongue and dental function. Am J Orthod. 1954;40(12):927–939. doi:10.1016/S0002-9416(54)90044-5.

9. Harvold EP, Chierici G, Vargervik K. Experiments on the development of dental malocclusions. Am J Orthod. 1972;61(1):38–44. doi:10.1016/0002-9416(72)90174-1.
10. Winders RV. Forces exerted on the dentition by the perioral and lingual musculature during swallowing. Angle Orthod. 1958;28(4):226–235.
11. Marşan G, Vasfi Kuvat S, Oztaş E, Cura N, Süsal Z, Emekli U. Oropharyngeal airway changes following bimaxillary surgery in Class III female adults. J Craniomaxillofac Surg. 2009;37(2):69–73. doi:10.1016/j.jcms.2008.11.001.
12. Partal I, Aksu M. Changes in lips, cheeks and tongue pressures after upper incisor protrusion in Class II division 2 malocclusion: a prospective study. Prog Orthod. 2017;18(1):29. doi:10.1186/s40510-017-0182-0.
13. Germec-Cakan D, Taner T, Akan S. Uvulo-glossopharyngeal dimensions in non-extraction, extraction with minimum anchorage, and extraction with maximum anchorage. Eur J Orthod. 2011;33(5):515–520. doi:10.1093/ejo/cjq109.
14. Valiathan M, El H, Hans MG, Palomo MJ. Effects of extraction versus non-extraction treatment on oropharyngeal airway volume. Angle Orthod. 2010;80(6):1068–1074. doi:10.2319/010810-19.1.
15. Ricketts RM. The keystone triad: I. Anatomy, phylogenetics, and clinical references. Am J Orthod. 1964;50(4):244–264. doi:10.1016/S0002-9416(64)80003-8.
16. Tweed CH. The Frankfort-mandibular plane angle in orthodontic diagnosis, classification, treatment planning, and prognosis. Am J Orthod Oral Surg. 1946;32:175–230.
17. Steiner CC. Orientation of Teeth in the Dental Arches. Angle Orthod. 1934;4(1):35–56.
18. Fröhlich K, Ingervall B, Thüer U. Further studies of the pressure from the tongue on the teeth in young adults. Eur J Orthod. 1992;14(3):229–239. doi:10.1093/ejo/14.3.229.
19. Al Maaitah E, El Said N, Abu Alhaija ES. First premolar extraction effects on upper airway dimension in bimaxillary proclination patients. Angle Orthod. 2012;82(5):853–859. doi:10.2319/101711-646.1.
20. Sims FW. The pressure exerted on the maxillary and mandibular central incisors by the perioral and lingual musculature in acceptable occlusion. Am J Orthod. 1958;44:64–65. doi:10.1016/s0002-9416(58)90185-4.
21. Subtelny JD, Sakuda M. Muscle function, oral malformation, and growth changes. Am J Orthod. 1966;52(7):495–517. doi:10.1016/0002-9416(66)90104-7.
22. Cohen AM, Vig PS. A serial growth study of the tongue and intermaxillary space. Angle Orthod. 1976;46(4):332–337.
23. Tuncer AV, Işıksal E. Cephalometric Evaluation of Tongue in Various Malocclusions. Turk J Orthod. 1991;4(2):1–8. doi:10.13076/1300-3550-4-2-1.
24. Peat JH. A cephalometric study of tongue position. Am J Orthod. 1968;54(5):339–351. doi:10.1016/0002-9416(68)90303-5.
25. Mustafa U. Chapter 11. In: Ortodontik tedavi prensipleri. Istanbul University; 1993. p. 161–196.
26. Bench RW. Growth of the cervical vertebrae as related to tongue, face, and denture behavior. Am J Orthod. 1963;49(3):183–214. doi:10.1016/0002-9416(63)90050-2.
27. Yamaoka M, Furusawa K, Uematsu T, Okafuji N, Kayamoto D, Kurihara S. Relationship of the hyoid bone and posterior surface of the tongue in prognathism and micrognathia. J Oral Rehabil. 2003;30(9):914–920. doi:10.1046/j.1365-2842.2003.01069.x.
28. Sharma K, Shrivastav S, Sharma N, Hotwani K, Murrell MD. Effects of first premolar extraction on airway dimensions in young adolescents: A retrospective cephalometric appraisal. Contemp Clin Dent. 2014;5(2):190–194. doi:10.4103/0976-237X.132314.
29. Hopkin GB. Neonatal and adult tongue dimensions. Angle Orthod. 1967;37(2):132–133.
30. Abu Allhaija ES, Al-Khateeb SN. Uvulo-glosso-pharyngeal dimensions in different anteroposterior skeletal patterns. Angle Orthod. 2005;75(6):1012–1018.
31. Heiser W, Niederwanger A, Bancher B, Bittermann G, Neunteufel N, Kulmer S. Three-dimensional dental arch and palatal form changes after extraction and nonextraction treatment. Part 1. Arch length and area. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop. 2004;126(1):71–81. doi:10.1016/j.ajodo.2003.05.015.
32. Heiser W, Niederwanger A, Bancher B, Bittermann G, Neunteufel N, Kulmer S. Three-dimensional dental arch and palatal form changes after extraction and nonextraction treatment. Part 2. Palatal volume and height. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop. 2004;126(1):82–90. doi:10.1016/j.ajodo.2003.05.016.
33. Ozbek MM, Memikoglu UT, Altug-Atac AT, Lowe AA. Stability of maxillary expansion and tongue posture. Angle Orthod. 2009;79(2):214–220. doi:10.2319/010908-12.1.