Birth delivery trauma and malocclusion

The aim of the investigation was to determine the dynamic of birth delivery and relate to dental occlu-sion among a group of adult subjects. The group studied was made up of 106 subjects (57 females and 49 males) referred for dental diagnosis and treatment. The average age was 26 with a range 22 to 30 years. In data collection and analysis the following were used as measures: dental occlusion (Angle Class I, II div 1, II div 2 and III) and type of delivery (normal, short, long, caesarean and other). Results showed that among 106 subjects 72 (68%) had malocclusion versus 34 (32%) with normal occlusion; 24 subjects (22.6%) have been normal delivery versus 82 (77.4%) with non-normal deliv-ery. Class I is present in 34 subjects (32%), class II division 1 in 26 (24%), class II division 2 in 22 (20%), class III in 16 (14%), and 8 subjects (6%) fall in the section “other”. Among 24 subjects with normal delivery 100% presented class I occlusion. However, among 82 subjects with non-normal delivery 10 subjects had a class I (12.2%) and the 72 (87.8%) had in the other classes, are distributed in the various subgroups of non-normal labor/delivery. None of the subjects with a malocclusion have a normal labor/delivery. Better understanding of the connections among osteopathic theory, cran-iosacral treatment and the outcomes upon dental occlusion, more rigorous evaluations are warranted.

1 Miotti FA. Epidemiological study and orthodontics. Mondo Ortod 16: 265-74, 1991.

2. Keski-Nisula K, et al. Occurrence of malocclusion and need of orthodontic treatment in early mixed dentition. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop 124: 631-8, 2003.

3. Onyeaso CO. An epidemiological survey of occlusal anomalies among secondary school children in Ibadan, Nigeria. Odontostomatol Trop 26: 25-9, 2003.

4. Liepa A. et al. Orthodontic treatment need in Latvia. Eur J Orthod. 25: 279-84, 2003.

5. Lauc T. Orofacial analysis on the Adriatic islands: an epidemio-logical study of malocclusions on Hvar Island. Eur J Orthod 25: 273- 8 , 2003.

6. Moyers. Manuale di Ortodonzia, Scienza e tecn. Dent., ed. Milano, International Co., 1991.

7. Di Malta E. Le terze classi. ed. Milano, Masson Co., 1992.

8. Enlow. Crescita cranio facciale, ed.Torino, Cides Odonto Co.,1986.

9. Moss ML, Salentijn. The primary role of functional matrices in facial growth. Am J Orthod 55: 566-7, 1969.

10. Cioni G, Ferrari F, Prechtl H. Motor assessment in the neonatal period, in motor development in children. 1st ed. London, J Libbey Co., 1994

11. Naoko Niikuni, Ichiro Nakajima., Morito Akasaka. The relation-ship between tongue-base position and craniofacial morphology in preschool children. J Clin Pediatric Dent 28: 131-134, 2004.

12. Sutherland WG. The cranial bowl: a treatise relating to cranial mobility, cranial articular lesion and cranial technic. Ed. Mankato, Minn. Free Press Co. 1966.

13. Magoun H.I. Osteopaty in the cranical field. Journal Printing Company, Kirksvill, Mo,1966.

14. Frymann V. A study of the rhythmic motions of the living crani-um. J Am Osteopath Assoc 70: 928-45, 1971.

15. Frymann V. Relation of disturbances of craniosacral mechanisms to symptomatology of the newborn: study of 1,250 infants. J Am Osteopath Assoc 65: 1059-75, 1966.

16. Testut L, Latariet A. Anatomia Umana, UTET 1977.

17. Willard F.H. Medical Neoro Anatomy, Lippincot Co., 1993.

18. Garliner D. The importance of oro-facial muscle function and dysfunction in the treatment of various occlusal problems. Fortschr Kieferorthop 47: 215-20, 1986.