Autor
Year
Study Design
Crossbite
Sample
Selected
from:
Age
Methods/
Results
Measureme
nts
1
Berg
2008
Cross- sectional
PCB: 21 subj
(12F, 9M)
59 subj
Randomly
selected
Interview
and Clinical
examination
2
Chiappe
2009
Case -control
Reverse
articulation
27,3% of the
sample
Dep. of
prosthod
ontics
3
Corvo
2003
Cross- sectional
UPCB:
10subj,
BPCB: 6subj
165 tmd
patients DDR
(65M, 100F);
145 ctr
group(65M,
80F)
106 patients
tmd (74F,
32M)
8 ys
61ys
(followup)
Patients:
32±11ys
Ctr:31±12
ys
10-18 ys
4
Egermark
-Eriksson
2003
Prospective
observational
study
12%, 18%,
22% in the
three
different
controls
100 subj (56M,
44F)
Orthogna
todontic
Departme
nt
Randomly
selected
5
Egermark
-Eriksson
1990
Prospective
observational
study
UPCB:
42subj,
BPCB: 4subj
238 subj
(116F, 122M)
6
Egermark
-Eriksson
1987
Prospective
observational
study
14% lateral
deviation
RCP/ICP
7
Egermark
-Eriksson
1983
Prospective
observational
PCB:10%
subj(premol
Associ
ation
Score
A third of our cohort reported Yes
various TMJ-symptoms
might indicate an association
with crossbite
Crossbite did not reveal to be No
statistically significant.
3
Clinical
examination
A modest prevalence of the Yes
clinical signs of TMJ problems in
presence of unilateral crossbite.
3
Examinati
on at
7,11,15
and 35 ys
Questionnair
e and clinical
examination
TMJ clicking was significantly Yes
associated to unilateral crossbite
after 10 years (r = 0.35), and
lateral forced bite RCP/ICP
(r=0.31) after 20 years.
7
Not
reported
7-11-15ys
Questionnair
e and clinical
examination
6
240subj(123M
, 117F)
Randomly
selected
11-15-20
ys
Questionnair
e and clinical
examination
402 subj
Random
7-11-15
ys
Questionnair
e and clinical
TMJ clicking was more than twice Yes
as frequent in individuals
recorded as having cross-bite
than in those who had no
malocclusion at all.
TMJ sounds were positively Yes
correlated with lateral deviation
of the mandible between
retruded contact and intercuspal
position in all age groups.
crossbite is not listed among the No
nine variables found to be
RDC/ TMD
9
8
5
study
ar region);
9%subj(mol
ar region)
PCB=
157subj
8
Farella
2007
Cross- sectional
9
Helm
1984
10
Keeling
1994
Prospective
observational
study
Cross- sectional
UPCB:93sub
j,
BPCB:27subj
PCB:
265subj
11
Marklund
2010
Prospective
observational
study
12
Marklund
2007
13
Miyawaki
2004
Prospective
observational
study
Case- control
UPCB
(8%)subjBPCB
(2%)subj
UPCB and
BPCB
=29subj
Patients
with DDR
and controls
14
Miyazaki
1994
Cross- sectional
15
Pahkala
2004
Prospective
observational
study
examination
associated to TMJ sound.
Posterior unilateral crossbite No
does not appear to be a risk
factor for temporomandibular
joint clicking.
unilateral
crossbite
was Yes
associated with locking of the
mandible.
Statistical significant association No
were not detected between TMJ
sounds and posterior crossbite.
7
1291 subj
(708M, 583F);
Schools,
nonpatients
Mean age
12.3±1.1
ys
RDC/TMD
841subj
(369M, 472F)
School
adult
3428 subj
(52.2/47.8
male/female
ratio)
280 (98M,
182F)
School
6-12 ys
(9±0.8)
Questionnair
e and clinical
examination
Clinical
examination
Dentistry
students
57%<21ys
43%>21ys
RDC/TMD
A registered crossbite at baseline Yes
was significantly related to the
incidence of TMJ disorders.
9
308 subj
(114M 194F)
Dentistry
students
23±4,9
ys(18-48)
RDC/TMD
6
12 subj with
DDR and 12
controls (12M,
12 F)
Patients
23.8
ysand
22.9ys
Radiographie
s , Magnetic
resonance
and clinical
examination
PCB:
265subj
532
subj(179M
353 F)
6-38 ys
Clinical
examination
Mean
percentage
in the
groups
48 subj (23F,
25m); 49 ctr,
(31F, 18M)
Orthodon
tic
departme
nt
School for
phoniatric
consultati
on
Crossbite was with a statistically Yes
significant co-morbidity to TMJ
pain and/or dysfunction.
Condylar movements in patients Yes
with
unilateral
posterior
crossbites might be related to the
susceptibility to TMJ disc
displacement, particularly the
lateral portion.
Posterior crossbite had a high Yes
prevalence of symptoms.
Examinati
onat
7,10,15 e
19 ys
Clinical
examination
Only protrusive interferences No
positively related to clicking
7
2
6
6
3
PCB=7.5%su
bj
UPXB=
15subj
16
Pellizzoni
2006
Case-control
31 subj:15
patients (6M,
9F) and 16
control (6M,
10F)
381 patients
TMD DDR and
osteoarthrosis,
and98 ctr
(female)
Patients
17
Pullinger
2000
Case-control
Not
reported
18
Pullinger
1993
Case- control
UPCB: 73
subj
413 patients
tmd, 147 ctr
19
Pullinger
1988
Cross- sectional
PCB: 70subj
222 subj
(102F, 120M)
Student
23.9 ys
mean
20
Roberts
1987
Cross- sectional
205 patients
tmd (222
joints, 188
unilateral and
17 bilateral)
Patients
Not
reported
21
Runge
1989
Cross- sectional
Deflective
malocclusio
n: 29(same
side), 30
opposite
side
Not
reported
226 subj
(103M, 123F)
Dental
clinic
Adolesce
nts and
adults
22
Seligman
1989
Cross- sectional
PCB=
32% ctr;
196 patients
tmd, 222 ctr
Dental
student
Not
reported
University
students,
private
patients
and
Orofacial
Pain
Center
Not
reported
Patients
(9.3±2.1y
s), control
(9.6±2.1
ys)
between
15 and 74
ys
RDC/TMD
Temporomandibular
joint No
derangement and unilateral
posterior
crossbite
are
independent occurrence.
4
Not reported
Patients with disk displacement Yes
were mainly characterized by
unilateral posterior crossbite.
Occlusal factors may be cofactors
in the identification of patients
with TMD, but their role should
not be overstated.
9
Not
reported
Questionnair
e and clinical
examination
Questionnair
e and clinical
examination
Clinical
examination
and
arthrography
Significant increases in risk with
unilateral
maxillary
lingual
crossbite.
Clicking was positive associated
with
unilateral
posterior
crossbite.
Tilted teeth on the contralateral
side were more common in cases
of reducing meniscal dislocation
than in cases of normal meniscus
position or of nonreducing
meniscal dislocation.
No
significant
association
between
presence/absence
sounds and crossbite.
Yes
6
Yes
5
Yes
3
No
5
The occurrence of crossbite in No
each patient diagnostic group
5
Questionnair
e,
stethoscope
and
audiovisual
examination
TMD
patients
18% DDR;
36% DDWR
UPCB: 26
subj
23
Sonnesen
2001
Case- control
24
Sonnesen
1998
Cross- sectional
PCB 22.1
%subj
25
Tecco
2011
Cross- sectional
26
Thilander
2002
Cross- sectional
UPCB= 45
subj
BPCB=
251subj
PCB:
216subj
27
Vanderas
2002
Cross- sectional
PCB
(46)subj,
PCB with
shift
(17)subj
(102F, 120M)
26 crossbite
patients (13M,
13F); 26 ctr
(13M, 13F)
104 subj (44F
and 56M)
1134 subj
(593M, 541F)
4724 subj
(2353 F and
2371 M)
314 subj
(161M, 153F)
Legenda:
Crossbite= number of subjects in the sample presenting crossbite
PCB= posterior crossbite
UPCB= unilateral posterior crossbite
BPCB=bilateral posterior crossbite
was similar to the control sample.
Dental
health
service
Populatio
n in
dental
health
service
University
patients
Dental
health
service
School
7-13 ys
(patients)
; 7-13 ys
(ctr)
7-13 ys
Questionnair
e and clinical
examination
Crossbite is not listed among the No
variables associated to joint
clicking.
4
Clinical
examination
There were no association No
between joint sounds and
malocclusion traits.
6
5-15 ys
RDC/TMD
Association
p=.22
sound No
5
5-17 ys
Questionnair
e and clinical
examination
Stethoscope
and clinical
examination
TMD was associated with Yes
posterior
crossbite;
click
associated to sliding.
clicking and posterior crossbite No
(p= 0.77);
6
6-8 ys
PCB-
TMJ
6
DDR= Disk Displacement with reduction
DDWR=Disk Displacement without reduction
RCP/ICP= retruded contact position/ intercuspal position
CMD=Cranio Mandibular Disorders
Subj=subjects
Ctr= control group