These tools will no longer be maintained as of December 31, 2024. Archived website can be found here. PubMed4Hh GitHub repository can be found here. Contact NLM Customer Service if you have questions.


Pubmed for Handhelds

PUBMED FOR HANDHELDS

Search MEDLINE/PubMed

  • Title: Effect of different masticatory functional demands on the 3D mandibular condyle morphology of growing rats using posterior bite-blocks.
    Author: Denes BJ, Lazzarotto B, Bresin A, Kiliaridis S.
    Journal: Eur J Orthod; 2018 May 25; 40(3):312-316. PubMed ID: 29040460.
    Abstract:
    BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVES: Apart from the primary effect of bite-blocks on tooth position, they may also influence the mandibular condylar growth. Our aim was to investigate their influence on the condylar morphology, with variable masticatory forces. MATERIAL AND METHODS: Fifty-two 4-week old male rats were divided into hard and soft diet groups in order to create individuals with different masticatory muscle capacity. Two weeks later, they were equally divided into bite-block and control groups. After a total of 6 weeks experimental time, the animals were sacrificed. The mandibles were scanned with high-resolution micro-CT and 3D analysis was performed on the condylar neck and head of the condyle. The volume and the length of the condylar process were measured. Statistical analysis was done with a one-way analysis of variance. RESULTS: The use of bite-blocks decreased the length of the condylar process (P = 0.001) as well as the volume of the condylar neck (P = 0.001) and head (P = 0.006). The soft diet decreased the volume of the condylar neck (P < 0.001) and head (P < 0.001) two to three times more than the bite-blocks but did not affect the condylar process length. The interaction between the two variables was not statistically significant. CONCLUSIONS: Both the bite-block appliance and weak masticatory muscle function reduced the volume at all regions of the condylar process, although the functional factor had a substantially greater effect. However, only the bite-block appliance affected the condylar process length. In the presence of both factors, an additive effect was found but no interaction detected.
    [Abstract] [Full Text] [Related] [New Search]