Professional Documents
Culture Documents
El Efecto de Tratamiento Orafacial Miofuncional en Niños Con Mordida Abierta Anterior y Disfuncion Lingual Estudio Piloto 1
El Efecto de Tratamiento Orafacial Miofuncional en Niños Con Mordida Abierta Anterior y Disfuncion Lingual Estudio Piloto 1
doi:10.1093/ejo/cjv044
Advance Access publication 1 July 2015
Original Article
Correspondence to: Guy Willems, Department of Oral Health Sciences-Orthodontics, Katholieke Universiteit Leuven, Ka-
pucijnenvoer 7 bus 7001, 3000 Leuven, Belgium. E-mail: guy.willems@med.kuleuven.be
© The Author 2015. Published by Oxford University Press on behalf of the European Orthodontic Society. All rights reserved.
227
For permissions, please email: journals.permissions@oup.com
228 European Journal of Orthodontics, 2016, Vol. 38, No. 3
position of the tongue was a more contributing factor than the swal- Several treatment approaches with regard to early treatment of
lowing position in determining dental arch form. The inadequate AOB can be found in the literature. Many authors agree that clini-
tongue position during swallowing must then be regarded as a result cians should be able to distinguish an AOB of dental and dentoal-
of a pre-existing morphological alteration, thus as a consequence veolar origin from a skeletal open bite so that treatment is directed
and not as a cause of the AOB. Other investigators however have towards the cause of the problem. Unfortunately, in most cases this
shown that functional tongue movements during deglutition are sig- distinction is not so clear and both dental and skeletal character-
nificantly correlated with certain features of maxillofacial morphol- istics are present. The treatment modalities for early correction of
ogy such as AOB (5–7). Individuals with partial AOB and incorrect AOB include functional, fixed, and removable appliances, with the
tongue position exhibit impaired gnostic sensibility of the tongue (8, goals of impeding mechanical factors that maintain the open bite
9), which is a symptom of disturbed sensorimotor coordination and (like thumb sucking or tongue thrust) and limiting excessive vertical
is connected with the incorrect position of the tongue. This results growth of the craniofacial skeleton (24–31). However, few publi-
in imprecise action and reduced vertical movement of the tongue. cations exist on early interceptive treatment in AOB patients with
Cayley et al. (10) reported that children who swallow incorrectly a persistent aberrant swallowing pattern using orofacial myofunc-
very rarely touch the anterior part of the palate with the tip of the tional therapy (OMT) (32–35). Some authors question the clinical
tongue. They perform predominantly horizontal tongue movements use of OMT (22). Others support the reestablishment of a normal
and place the tongue between their anterior teeth while speaking and oral function after OMT in patients with myofunctional disorders
swallowing (11). Although studies have demonstrated that tongue such as tongue thrusting (36, 37).
thrust plays an important role in the etiology of AOB as well as in The aim of a myofunctional program is to establish a new neu-
the relapse of treated AOB patients, the exact etiological connection romuscular pattern and to correct abnormal functional and resting
between malocclusion and malfunction during swallowing remains postures. Cayley et al. (38) demonstrated that normal swallowing
controversial (12). This applies in particular to the extent to which function resumes after OMT in subjects with AOB. Also the improve-
orofacial dysfunctions foster the development of malocclusions and ment of the resting position of the tongue has been described (35). It
how a dysfunction can be positively influenced by a change in struc- has been suggested that an OMT therapist should train the patient
ture (13). to lift the body of the tongue in order to learn a normal resting posi-
From the standpoint of developmental physiology, a distinction tion of the tongue. Other treatment objectives are strengthening of
is drawn between visceral, somatic, and inconstant swallowing (12, the orofacial muscles to pave the way for mouth closure, establish
14). Visceral swallowing exists at birth and is also termed ‘infan- nasal breathing, and learn a physiological swallowing pattern (39).
Table 1. Inclusion and exclusion criteria. Table 2. Overview of the different sessions during the myofunc-
tional training program.
Inclusion criteria
1 Explanation of treatment process and motivation
Lack of contact between the lower central incisors and the upper
central incisors or palate 2–3 Strengthen tongue and lip musculature
Early or intermediate mixed dentition 4–5 Basis of the swallowing process
Visceral swallowing pattern 6 Strengthen the anterior part of the tongue
Exclusion criteria 7–9 Strengthen the mid part of the tongue
Age less than 6 or more than 10 years old 10–11 Strengthen the posterior part of the tongue
Sucking habits not ceased for at least 6 months prior to intake 13–14 Coordination of the total swallow movement
History of myofunctional therapy 15–16 Practice on conscious habit formation
Mental retardation 17–18 Practice on unconscious habit formation
Orofacial congenital deformities or orofacial syndromes 19 Control of physiological swallowing act
Muscular or connective tissue disorders 20 Control of physiological swallowing act and follow-up
Macroglossia or ankyloglossia
Obstructed nasal airway
Table 3. Overview of the categories scored during clinical exami-
nation.
times (in the form of a cookie). Swallowing patterns were assigned in however that whereas in the stratum of patients without expansion
one of the categories represented in Table 3. During swallowing the the effect was significant (MYO compared with CON, P = 0.016),
lips were gently separated to visualize tongue position. Tongue posi- evidence was lacking in the stratum of patients with expansion
tion during the production of the sounds /l,n,d,t,s/ was recorded as (COMBI compared with EXP, P = 0.28). Also at T2, there was a sig-
the child spoke Dutch test sentences and words. Articulation findings nificant higher pressure for OMT subjects compared to non-OMT
during speech were categorized as described in Table 3. subjects (estimate difference 7.6 kPa; P = 0.004). Again, no interac-
The lack of contact between the lower central incisors and their tion between OMT and expansion was found (P = 0.94). At this
antagonists or the palate was evaluated at T0, T1, and T2. timepoint, tongue pressure was found to be significantly increased
in MYO and COMBI subgroups, respectively compared with CON
Statistical analysis and EXP subgroups (P = 0.029 and P = 0.040).
An analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) was performed separately on At the end of treatment 10.0% and 8.3% of the respectively
the tongue pressure measurements at T1 and T2, using the baseline OMT and non-OMT subjects had contact between the lower central
pressure level as a covariate. OMT (no/yes) and expansion (no/yes) incisors and their antagonists or palate. This difference was not sig-
are considered factors in the ANCOVA model. An estimate of the nificant. However, at T2 there was a significant difference between
difference between OMT and non-OMT patients is given for the both groups (OR = 12.200, P = 0.036; 60.0% in the OMT group
patients with and without expansion separately, followed by the and 8.3% in the non-OMT group). There was no evidence that the
effect estimate for both groups of patients combined. Furthermore, ORs were different in both subgroups with or without expansion
it has been verified if the effect of OMT depends on expansion (by (T1, P = 1.000; T2, P = 0.471, Table 5).
evaluating the interaction between expansion and OMT in the Tongue posture at rest was physiological in 10.0% of the OMT
ANCOVA). subjects and in 0.0% of the non-OMT subjects. At T1, respectively
Since the randomization was stratified on expansion, the com- 60.0% and 0.0% demonstrated a normal rest posture and the differ-
parison of proportions between patients with and without OMT ence was found to be significant (P = 0.006). At six months follow-
was done based on a common odds ratio (OR) in a stratified 2 × 2 up, the difference was also significant (P = 0.036, 60.0% and 8.3%)
table. The two-sided P-value from an exact test for the common OR and no evidence was found that the ORs were different in both sub-
is reported and an exact two-sided 95% confidence interval (CI) has groups with or without expansion (P = 0.471). The common ORs
been constructed. The homogeneity of the ORs in the two strata is and 95% CIs are shown in Table 5.
No difference was found between the amount of OMT subjects
Table 4. Age distribution and maximum tongue elevation pressure (expressed in kiloPascal).
No expansion Expansion
N 6 4 6 6
Mean age (SD) 8.3 (0.8) 9.1 (1.2) 8.4 (0.3) 8.7 (0.9)
Mean (SD) pressure at T0 36.3 (9.9) 43.9 (15.0) 48.2 (7.5) 38.3 (12.1)
Mean (SD) pressure at T1 45.4 (7.4) 44.7 (16.3) 51.8 (9.3) 39.6 (11.2)
Mean (SD) pressure at T2 46.1 (7.4) 44.2 (14.5) 52.3 (8.2) 37.5 (7.6)
Table 5. Observed frequencies (%) of positive outcome in OMT and non-OMT patients aggregated over both strata (expansion–no expansion).
OR, odds ratios for the effect of OMT with exact 95% confidence intervals (CI) and P value. P-value Zelen, test for the interaction between OMT and expansion
(homogeneity of the ORs between both strata). ND, not defined due to the presence of cells with zero observations.
had been stratified on the presence of a transversal crossbite. If a subjects. It is obvious that there is a lack of evidence defining the
crossbite was present, expansion of the upper arch was intended ideal age to start OMT and more research is needed.
to correct the transversal discrepancy and to provide more space Patients with oral phase swallowing problems are assumed to
for the tongue. The interrelation between maxillary constriction have a tongue strength that is significantly lower than in normal
and orofacial dysfunctions is highlighted in the literature (43, 44) subjects (50). Several methods have been used to measure tongue
and the correction of maxillary constriction has been regarded as strength as pressure within the oral cavity, including strain-gauge
an additional target for early treatment in AOB patients (30, 45). manometry, force sensitive resistors and bulb pressure sensors, like
Since no interaction between OMT and expansion was found, all the IOPI system (3, 4, 51–58). The IOPI has been utilized in many
motility might influence the swallowing type assessment, must be More research is needed to explore the benefits of this kind of treat-
taken into account (67). Another method to overcome this problem ment modality (39).
is the Payne technique advocated by Garliner, whereby fluorescent OMT aims to make the patient conscious of the false static and
orabase paste is applied on the tongue (68). However, for practical dynamic tongue position and to learn a physiological myofunctional
reasons it was not used in this study. behaviour. Although some authors assumed the tongue’s position at
As part of OMT the tongue can be re-trained, meaning that opti- rest unconsciously except during exercises (68), our study demon-
mal motility of the tongue can be created (67). At T1 and T2, OMT strated a significant increase of subjects with a physiological tongue
did increase the proportion of subjects performing a correct swal- posture at rest and during swallowing after completion of OMT.
low pattern, both during swallowing of water and solid food. This At T2 the children with a normal tongue posture at rest did had
increase might be caused by the fact that some of the OMT children contact between the lower central incisors and their antagonists or
effectively achieved the habit correction, but it might be biased by the palate. This finding hypothesized that OMT effectively changed
the fact that some of these children just perform a correct swallow the rest posture of the tongue in some individuals. Since the tongue
during the clinical trials or by the fact that the evaluation was not was positioned at the palatal aspect of the alveolar ridge in these
performed blindly. However, the transition from conscious to uncon- subjects, the further eruption of the lower incisors was no longer
scious habit correction can not be assessed during a clinical exami- impeded by the tongue. This high percentage of subjects with contact
nation. An intra-oral device sensitive for detecting tongue position is influenced by the fact that at baseline most of the subjects had an
and movements during daily activities can elucidate this problem. anterior non-occlusion. The authors do not presume that OMT per
Cayley et al. (38) have reported that normal swallowing function se cause morphological alterations in subjects with more severe or
resumes after OMT in subjects with AOB. However, in this study skeletal open bites. OMT is not a substitute for orthodontic treat-
not all OMT children performed a correct swallow at T1. This might ment and inducing morphological changes is even not a primary
indicate that some children needed more training or more time to purpose of OMT. However, our findings demonstrate that OMT can
achieve a correct conscious swallow or that in some children OMT be a helpful adjunct to orthodontic treatment in patients with aber-
could not correct the aberrant swallowing pattern. The myofunc- rant tongue behaviour. Other authors emphasized the potential of
tional protocol has to be adapted to the needs of every individual. myofunctional treatment as well (32,33,35,40). Nevertheless, fur-
As an active exercise concept, the success of OMT is also crucially ther research is needed to elucidate factors influencing the outcome
dependent on motivation and compliance of both child and parents. of OMT, in order to select the appropriate patients.
An evaluation of patient’s cooperation would be of value for further Children with articulatory speech disorders are reported to
order of testing on maximum anterior and posterior tongue strength and 58. Clark, H.M. and Solomon, N.P. (2012) Age and sex difference in orofacial
endurance in healthy belgian adults. Dysphagia, 28, 159–166. strength. Dysphagia, 27, 2–9.
42. Stahl, F., Grabowski, R., Gaebel, M. and Kundt, G. (2007) Relationship 59. Clarck, H.M., Henson, P.A., Barber, W.D., Stierwalt, J.A. and Sherrill, M.
between occlusal findings and orofacial myofunctional status in primary (2003) Relationships among subjective and objective measures of tongue
and mixed dentition. Part II: prevalence of orofacial dysfunctions. Journal strength and oral phase swallowing impairments. American Journal of
of Orofacial Orthopedics, 68, 74–90. Speech-Language Pathology, 12, 40–50.
43. Ballanti, F., Franchi, L. and Cozza, P. (2009) Transverse dentoskeletal fea- 60. Vanderwegen, J., Guns, C., Van Nuffelen, G., Elen, R. and De Bodt, M.
tures of anterior open bite in the mixed dentition. Angle Orthodontist, 79, (2013) Factors affecting tongue strength and endurance. Dysphagia, 28,
615–620. 159–166.
44. Seemann, J., Kundt, G. and Stahl de Castrillon, F. (2011) Relationship 61. Youmans, S.R. and Stierwalt, J.A. (2006) Measures of tongue function
between occlusal findings and orofacial myofunctional status in primary related to normal swallowing. Dysphagia, 21, 102–111.
and mixed dentition: part IV: interrelation between space conditions and 62. Adams, V., Mathisen, B., Baines, S., Lazarus, C. and Callister, R. (2013)
orofacial dysfunctions. Journal of Orofacial Orthopedics, 72, 21–32. A systematic review and meta-analysis of measurements of tongue and
45. Aznar, T., Galán, A.F., Marín, I. and Domínguez, A. (2006) Dental arch hand strength and endurance using the Iowa Oral Performance Instrument
diameters and relationships to oral habits. Angle Orthodontist, 76, 441– (IOPI). Dysphagia, 28, 350–369.
445. 63. Dworkin, J.P. and Culatta, R.A. (1980) Tongue strength: its relationship to
46. Umberger, F.G., Weld, G.L. and Van Rennen, J.S. (1985) Tongue thrust: tongue thrusting, open-bite, and articulatory proficiency. Journal of Speech
attitudes and practices of speech pathologists and orthodontists. Interna- and Hearing Disorders, 45, 277–282.
tional Journal of Orofacial Myology, 11, 5–13 64. Di Fazio, D., Lombardo, L., Gracco, A., D’Amico, P. and Siciliani, G.
47. Mason, R.M. and Role, E.B. (2009) Did you know? A question and (2011) Lip pressure at rest and during function in 2 groups of patients
answer dialogue for the orofacial myologist. International Journal of Oro- with different occlusions. American Journal of Orthodontics and Dentofa-
facial Myology, 35, 5–17. cial Orthopedics, 139, e1–e6.
48. Spreidel, T., Isaacson, R. and Worms, F. (1972) Tongue thrust therapy and 65. Posen, A.L. (1972) The influence of maximum perioral and tongue force
anterior dental open bite. American Journal of Orthodontics, 62, 287– on the incisor teeth. Angle Orthodontist, 42, 285–309.
295. 66. Ovsenik, M., Volk, J. and Music Marolt, M. (2014) A 2D ultrasound
49. Proffit, W.R. and Mason, R.M. (1975) Myofunctional therapy for tongue- evaluation of swallowing in children with unilateral posterior crossbite.
thrusting: background and recommendations. Journal of the American European Journal of Orthodontics, 36, 665–671.
Dental Association, 90, 403–411. 67. Mehnert, J., Landau, H., Orawa, H., Kittel, A., Krause, M., Engel, S., Jost-
50. Lazarus, C.L., Logemann, J.A., Pauloski, B.R., Rademaker, A.W., Larson, Brinkmann, P.G. and Müller-Hartwich, R. (2009) Validity and reliability