FARKLI TİPTE MALOKLÜZYONA SAHİP ADÖLESAN BİREYLERDE FOTOGRAFİK KRANİOSERVİKAL POSTÜRAL DEĞERLENDİRME

Year 2021, Volume: 6 Issue: 3, 38 - 46, 24.12.2021

Refik Hilmi Barış , Nevin Atalay Güzel , Okan Akçam , Nihan Kafa , Emre Ayyıldız

https://doi.org/10.52881/gsbdergi.973515

Abstract

Amaç: Bu çalışmanın amacı, farklı tipte maloklüzyonlu adölesan bireylerin kranioservikal postürlerini, pratik bir yöntem olan fotografik analiz metodu kullanılarak değerlendirmektir.

Yöntem: Çalışmaya yaşları 10 ila 15 arasında değişen otuz iki adölesan birey dahil edildi. Katılımcıların maloklüzyon tipleri Angle Sınıflandırmasına göre belirlendi ve kişiler Angle Sınıf I (10 kişi), Angle Sınıf II (12 kişi) ve Angle Sınıf III (10 kişi) olmak üzere üç sınıfa ayrıldı. Katılımcıların kranioservikal postür değerlendirmesinde fotografik postür analiz yöntemi kullanılarak sagittal baş açısı, servikal açı ve omuz açısı değerlendirildi.

Bulgular: Üç sınıf arasında istatistiksel olarak anlamlı bir fark saptanamazken (p>0,05), sagittal baş ve omuz açılarının değerleri, Sınıf II ve Sınıf III ‘de Sınıf I ‘ e göre daha düşük olduğu tespit edildi.

Sonuç: Fotografik postüral analiz yöntemi kullanılarak elde edilen sonuçlara göre, farklı tipte maloklüzyonlara sahip adölesan bireylerin kranioservikal postüral değerlendirmelerinde farklılık tespit edilemedi.

Keywords

Maloklüzyon, fotografik, kranioservikal, adölesan

EVALUATING CRANIOCERVICAL POSTURE BY USING A PHOTOGRAPHIC POSTURAL ANALYSIS in ADOLESCENTS with DIFFERENT MALOCCLUSIONS

Abstract

ABSTRACT
Background: The aim of the present study was to evaluate the craniocervical posture in adolescents with different malocclusions using a practical photographic posture analysis method.

Methods: Thirty-two adolescents (10-15 years) were recruited. The subjects were divided into three groups according to Angle Classification as Angle Class I (10 subjects), Angle Class II (12 subjects) and Angle Class III (10 subjects). Craniocervical postural assessments were conducted using a ‘photographic posture analysis’ method based on three substantial postural angles (sagittal head angle, cervical angle and shoulder angle).

Results: No statistically significant differences were detected between three groups (p>0.05), however, sagittal head and shoulder angles were signifacantly lower in the Class II and III groups when compared to Class I.

Conclusion: According to our results, by using the photographic method, no difference was detected in craniocervical posture in adolescents with different malocclusions.

Keywords

mocclusion, posture, craniocervical, adolescents

References

• Michelotti A, Buonocore G, Manzo P, Pellegrino G, Farella M. Dental occlusion and posture: an overview. Progress in orthodontics. 2011;12(1):53-8.
• Hassan R, Rahimah A. Occlusion, malocclusion and method of measurements-an overview. Archives of orofacial sciences. 2007;2:3-9.
• Gravely J, Johnson D. Angle's classification of malocclusion: an assessment of reliability. British journal of orthodontics. 1974;1(3):79-86.
• American Academy of Orthopedic Surgeons; Evanston I. American Academy of Orthopaedic Surgeons Posture and its relationship to orthopaedic disabilities. A report of the posture committee(1947).
• Hazar Z, Karabicak GO, Tiftikci U. Reliability of photographic posture analysis of adolescents. Journal of physical therapy science. 2015;27(10):3123-6.
• Paušić J, Pedišić Ž, Dizdar D. Reliability of a photographic method for assessing standing posture of elementary school students. Journal of manipulative and physiological therapeutics. 2010;33(6):425-31.
• Straker LM, Smith AJ, Bear N, O'Sullivan PB, de Klerk NH. Neck/shoulder pain, habitual spinal posture and computer use in adolescents: the importance of gender. Ergonomics. 2011;54(6):539-46.
• Ruivo RM, Pezarat-Correia P, Carita AI. Intrarater and interrater reliability of photographic measurement of upper-body standing posture of adolescents. Journal of manipulative and physiological therapeutics. 2015;38(1):74-80.
• Lippold C, Danesh G, Hoppe G, Drerup B, Hackenberg L. Sagittal spinal posture in relation to craniofacial morphology. The angle orthodontist. 2006;76(4):625-31.
• Pruneda JFM. Dental malocclusion and its relationship with body posture: a new research challenge in stomatology. Boletín Médico del Hospital Infantil de México. 2013;70(5):341-3.
• Solow B, Kreiborg S. Soft‐tissue stretching: a possible control factor in craniofacial morphogenesis. European Journal of Oral Sciences. 1977;85(6):505-7.
• Batista KB, Thiruvenkatachari B, Harrison JE, D O'Brien K. Orthodontic treatment for prominent upper front teeth (Class II malocclusion) in children and adolescents. Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews. 2018;13(3):CD003452–CD003452.
• Pepicelli A, Woods M, Briggs C. The mandibular muscles and their importance in orthodontics: a contemporary review. American Journal of Orthodontics and Dentofacial Orthopedics. 2005;128(6):774-80.
• Manfredini D, Castroflorio T, Perinetti G, Guarda‐Nardini L. Dental occlusion, body posture and temporomandibular disorders: where we are now and where we are heading for. Journal of oral rehabilitation. 2012;39(6):463-71.
• Nobili A, Adversi R. Relationship between posture and occlusion: a clinical and experimental investigation. Cranio®. 1996;14(4):274-85.
• Gadotti I, Berzin F, Biasotto‐Gonzalez D. Preliminary rapport on head posture and muscle activity in subjects with class I and II. Journal of Oral Rehabilitation. 2005;32(11):794-9.
• Van Niekerk S-M, Louw Q, Vaughan C, Grimmer-Somers K, Schreve K. Photographic measurement of upper-body sitting posture of high school students: a reliability and validity study. BMC musculoskeletal disorders. 2008;9(1):113.
• Armijo-Olivo S, Rappoport K, Fuentes J, Gadotti IC, Major PW, Warren S, et al. Head and cervical posture in patients with temporomandibular disorders. Journal of orofacial pain. 2011;25(3) :199-209.
• D’Attilio M, Caputi S, Epifania E, Festa F, Tecco S. Evaluation of cervical posture of children in skeletal class I, II, and III. Cranio®. 2005;23(3):219-28.
• Lippold C, Danesh G, Schilgen M, Drerup B, Hackenberg L. Relationship between thoracic, lordotic, and pelvic inclination and craniofacial morphology in adults. The Angle Orthodontist. 2006;76(5):779-85.
• Sinko K, Grohs J-G, Millesi-Schobel G, Watzinger F, Turhani D, Undt G, et al. Dysgnathia, orthognathic surgery and spinal posture. International journal of oral and maxillofacial surgery. 2006;35(4):312-7.
• Perillo L, Signoriello G, Ferro F, Baccetti T, Masucci C, Apicella D, et al. Dental occlusion and body posture in growing subjects. A population-based study in 12-year-old Italian adolescents. International Dentistry SA. 2008;10(6): 46-52.
• Šidlauskienė M, Smailienė D, Lopatienė K, Čekanauskas E, Pribuišienė R, Šidlauskas M. Relationships between malocclusion, body posture, and nasopharyngeal pathology in pre-orthodontic children. Medical Science Monitor: International medical journal of experimental and clinical research. 2015;21:1765.
• Deda MRdC, Mello-Filho FVd, Xavier SP, Trawitzki LVV. Head posture in the presence of class II and class III dentofacial deformities. Revista CEFAC. 2012;14(2):274-80.
• Iacob SM, Chisnoiu AM, Lascu LM, Berar AM, Studnicska D, Fluerasu MI. Is PostureScreen® Mobile app an accurate tool for dentists to evaluate the correlation between malocclusion and posture? Cranio®. 2020; 38(4):233-239.
• Edmondston SJ, Chan HY, Ngai GCW, Warren MLR, Williams JM, Glennon S, et al. Postural neck pain: an investigation of habitual sitting posture, perception of ‘good’posture and cervicothoracic kinaesthesia. Manual therapy. 2007;12(4):363-71.
• Raine S, Twomey L. Posture of the head, shoulders and thoracic spine in comfortable erect standing. Australian Journal of Physiotherapy. 1994;40(1):25-32.
• Liu Y, Sun X, Chen Y, Hu M, Hou X, Liu C. Relationships of sagittal skeletal discrepancy, natural head position, and craniocervical posture in young Chinese children. Cranio®. 2016;34(3):155-62.
• Vukićević V, Petrović Đ. Relationship between head posture and parameters of sagittal position and length of jaws. Medicinski pregled. 2016;69(9-10):288-93.