Intra-oral compartment pressures: a biofunctional model and experimental measurements under different conditions of posture

Oral posture is considered to have a major influence on the development and reoccurrence of malocclusion. A biofunctional model was tested with the null hypotheses that (1) there are no significant differences between pressures during different oral functions and (2) between pressure measurements in different oral compartments in order to substantiate various postural conditions at rest by intra-oral pressure dynamics. Atmospheric pressure monitoring was simultaneously carried out with a digital manometer in the vestibular inter-occlusal space (IOS) and at the palatal vault (sub-palatal space, SPS). Twenty subjects with normal occlusion were evaluated during the open-mouth condition (OC), gently closed lips (semi-open compartment condition, SC), with closed compartments after the generation of a negative pressure (CCN) and swallowing (SW). Pressure curve characteristics were compared between the different measurement phases (OC, SC, CCN, SW) as well as between the two compartments (IOS, SPS) using analysis of variance and Wilcoxon matched-pairs tests adopting a significance level of α = 0.05. Both null hypotheses were rejected. Average pressures (IOS, SPS) in the experimental phases were 0.0, −0.08 (OC); −0.16, −1.0 (SC); −48.79, −81.86 (CCN); and −29.25, −62.51 (SW) mbar. CCN plateau and peak characteristics significantly differed between the two compartments SPS and IOS. These results indicate the formation of two different intra-oral functional anatomical compartments which provide a deeper understanding of orofacial biofunctions and explain previous observations of negative intra-oral pressures at rest

Changes in Lips, Cheeks And Tongue Pressures After Upper Incisor Protrusion in Class Ii Division 2 Malocclusion: A Prospective Study

Background The etiology of Class II division 2 (CII/2) malocclusion focuses on heredity; however lip, cheek, and tongue pressures that are associated with the environmental effect are considered to have an effect. The aim of this study was to evaluate the relation between perioral pressures and the upper incisor inclination in CII/2 malocclusion. Methods Twenty patients (8 females, 12 males; mean age 10.29 ± 0.90 years) with CII/2 malocclusion were included in the study group, and 15 patients (5 females, 10 males; mean age 10.56 ± 1.06 years) with Class I malocclusion were included. The upper incisors were protruded with a utility arch (0.016 × 0.022 in. blue elgiloy wire). Perioral pressure assessment was made with the Iowa Oral Pressure Instrument. Upper lip pressure, lower lip pressure, vertical lip pressure, left-right buccal pressures, swallowing, and maximum tongue pressures were measured. Repeated measure ANOVA was used to test the intragroup differences. Intergroup comparisons were made using two-way repeated measure ANOVA with Bonferroni correction. Relationships between the variables were analyzed using rank correlation (Spearman’s rho). The significance for all statistical tests was predetermined at p < 0.05. Results A significant change occurred in the upper lip pressure, lower lip pressure, and vertical lip pressure; however, significant difference was not found between the groups. Upper lip pressure increased significantly in both groups. In the CII/2 group, lower lip pressure increased after protrusion and decreased after retention, while vertical lip pressure decreased and then increased significantly. Left buccal pressure changes between the groups were not parallel. Right buccal pressure, swallowing, and maximum tongue pressure changes were not statistically significant. Statistically significant correlation was found between U1-NA (mm) and vertical lip pressure (r −0.467). Conclusions In the CII/2 group, upper lip pressure increased only in retention. Lower lip pressure increased and vertical lip pressure decreased after protrusion. Nevertheless, these changes did not remain stable after the retention period. The difference between groups was not statistically significant at the end of retention.PubMedWoSScopu