Differences in mandibular morphology between bruxism and non-bruxism patients based on the Levandoski analysis

Aghitsna Aulia Aufa; Rasmi Rikmasari; Daisy Wulansari

doi:10.22146/majkedgiind.76015

Differences in mandibular morphology between bruxism and non-bruxism patients based on the Levandoski analysis

https://doi.org/10.22146/majkedgiind.76015

Aghitsna Aulia Aufa^(1*), Rasmi Rikmasari⁽²⁾, Daisy Wulansari⁽³⁾

(1) Faculty of Dentistry, Universitas Padjadjaran, Bandung, West Java
(2) Department of Prosthodontics, Faculty of Dentistry, Universitas Padjadjaran, Bandung, West Java
(3) Department of Prosthodontics, Faculty of Dentistry, Universitas Padjadjaran, Bandung, West Java
(*) Corresponding Author

Abstract

Bruxism is a condition that involves grinding and clenching which can place a large load on the mandible, so it can change the morphology of the mandible. Based on the Levandoski analysis, this study aimed to determine whether there are differences in the mandibular morphology between bruxism and non-bruxism patients. This study was a cross-sectional analytic study conducted on the panoramic radiographic samples of bruxism and non-bruxism patients with a total sample of 30 patients (n = 30) in each group, obtained from the radiographic archives at the Radiology Installation of RSGM Universitas Padjadjaran which have been confirmed as bruxism and non-bruxism patients. Measurements were carried out using ImageJ software based on the reference lines by Levandoski. The results of the study were analyzed using SPSS software by performing normality and homogeneity tests, followed by a statistically independent t-test or Mann-Whitney test. The results of the independent t-test showed that three lines had a p-value < 0.05, namely the line from the point gonion to the maxillary vertical line on the right side, the distance from the top point of the condyle to the maxillary interincisal point on the right side, and the distance from the top point of the condyle to the mandibular interincisal point on the right side. The Mann-Whitney test results showed that two lines had a p-value < 0.05, namely the maxillary vertical midline and the distance from the condyle to the left maxillary vertical line. The other line had a p-value> 0.05. There were differences in the mandibular morphology between bruxism and non-bruxism patients based on the Levandoski analysis, namely the length of the maxillary vertical midline, the distance from the condyle top point to the maxillary vertical midline, the distance from the point gonion to the maxillary vertical midline, the distance from the top point of the condyle to the maxillary interincisal point on the left side, and the distance from the top point of the condyle to the mandibular interincisal point on the left side. On the other four lines, there was no significant difference between bruxism and non-bruxism patients.

Keywords

bruxism; levandoski analysis; panoramic radiograph

Full Text:

PDF

References

1. Ella B, Ghorayeb I, Burbaud P, Guehl D. Bruxism in movement disorders: a comprehensive review. J Prosthodont. 2017; 26(7): 599–605. doi: 10.1111/jopr.12479

2. Manfredini D, Winocur E, Guarda-Nardini L, Paesani D, Lobbezoo F. Epidemiology of Bruxism in adults: a systematic review of the literature. J Orofac Pain. 2013; 27(2): 99–110. doi: 10.11607/jop.921

3. Melo G, Duarte J, Pauletto P, Porporatti AL, Stuginski-Barbosa J, Winocur E, Flores-Mir C, Canto GDL. Bruxism: an umbrella review of systematic reviews. J Oral Rehabil. 2019; 46(7): 666–690. doi: 10.1111/joor.12801

4. Commisso MS, Martínez-Reina J, Mayo J. A study of the temporomandibular joint during
bruxism. Int J Oral Sci. 2014; 6(2): 116–123. doi: 10.1038/ijos.2014.4

5. Goldstein RE, Clark WA. The clinical management of awake bruxism. J Am Dent Assoc. 2017; 148(6): 387–391. doi: 10.1016/j.adaj.2017.03.005

6. Biagi R, Craparo A, Trovato F, Butti AC, Salvato A. Diagnosis of dental and mandibular asymmetries in children according to levandoski panoramic analysis. Eur J Paediatr Dent. 2012; 13(4): 297–300.

7. Gulec M, Tassoker M, Ozcan S, Orhan K. Evaluation of the mandibular trabecular bone in patients with bruxism using fractal analysis. Oral Radiol. 2021; 37(1): 36–45.
doi: 10.1007/s11282-020-00422-5

8. Özcan E, Sabuncuoglu FA. Radiological analysis of the relationship between occlusal
tooth wear and mandibular alveolar bone density and height. Indian J Dent Res. 2013;
24(5): 555–561. doi:10.4103/0970-9290.123365

9. Rahmi E, Rikmasari R, Soemarsongko T. The bone remodeling of mandible in bruxers.
Int J Med Health Sci. 2017; 19(10): 515–518.

10. Fauziah H, Sumarsongko T, Azhari A. Perbedaan ketinggian tulang kortikal mandibula antara penderita bruxism dan bukan penderita bruxism berdasarkan indeks panoramik mandibular. J Kedokt Gigi Univ Padjadjaran. 2020; 32(2): 113-118. doi:10.24198/jkg.v32i2.26570

11. Setiawati R, Rahardjo P. Bone development and growth. Osteogenes Bone Regen. 2019;
1–20. doi:10.5772/intechopen.82452

12. Lobbezoo F, Ahlberg J, Raphael KG, Wetselaar P, Glaros AG, Kato T, Santiago V, Winocur E, Laat AD, Leeuw RD, Koyano K, Lavigne GJ, Svensson P, Manfredini D. International consensus on the assessment of bruxism: report of a work in progress. J Oral Rehabil. 2018; 45(11): 837–844. doi: 10.1111/joor.12663

13. Wetselaar P, Vermaire E, Lobbezoo F, Schuller A. The prevalence of awake bruxism and sleep bruxism in the Dutch adult population. J Oral Rehabil. 2019; 46(7): 617623. doi: 10.1111/joor.12787

14. Saczuk K, Lapinska B, Wilmont P, Pawlak L, Lukomska-Szymanska M. The bruxoff device as a screening method for sleep bruxism in dental practice. J Clin Med. 2019; 8(7): 930945. doi: 10.3390/jcm8070930

15. Marangoni AF, de Godoy CHL, BiasottoGonzalez DA, Alfaya TA, Fernandes KPS, Mesquita-Ferrari RA, Bussadori SK. Assessment of type of bite and vertical dimension of occlusion in children and adolescents with temporomandibular disorder. J Bodyw Mov Ther. 2014; 18(3): 435-440. doi: 10.1016/j.jbmt.2013.10.001

16. Isman O. Evaluation of jaw bone density and morphology in bruxers using panoramic
radiography. J Dent Sci. 2021; 16(2): 676–681. doi: 10.1016/j.jds.2020.09.008

17. Xiong X, Zhang Q, Liu Y. Correlations between mandibular ramus height and occlusal planes
in Han Chinese individuals with normal occlusion: a cross-sectional study. APOS
Trends Orthod. 2022; 11(4): 295-300. doi: 10.25259/APOS_78_2021

18. Yazıcıoğlu İ, Çiftçi V. Evaluation of signs and symptoms of temporomandibular disorders
and incisal relationships among 7-10-yearold Turkish children with sleep bruxism: a
cross-sectional study. Cranio. 2021: 1-7. doi: 10.1080/08869634.2021.1939932

19. Ahila S, Sasikala C, Kumar B, Tah R, Abinaya K. Evaluation of the correlation of ramus height, gonial angle, and dental height with different facial forms in individuals with deep
bite disorders. Ann Med Health Sci Res. 2016; 6(4): 232-238. doi: 10.4103/amhsr.amhsr_335_15

20. Padmaja SL, Elenjickal T, Ram S, Thangasamy K. Assessment of mandibular surface area
changes in bruxers versus controls on panoramic radiographic images: a case control study. Open Dent J. 2018; 12(1): 753761. doi: 10.2174/1745017901814010753

21. Hazar BE, Çakmak ÖF, Yılmaz H, Demiriz L. Investigating the effect of bruxism on maxillary
arch length and width in children using threedimensional digital model analysis. Prog
Orthod. 2022; 23(1): 2-8. doi: 10.1186/s40510-021-00396-y

DOI: https://doi.org/10.22146/majkedgiind.76015