PubMed Health⌕ Search
Home/Archive/PubMed

PubMed · 14994888

Unilateral Angle II in functional lateralities.

T Heikkinen·T Poikela·M Grön·L Alvesalo
View original source ↗Export metadata ↓

Abstract

The aim of this study was to explore unilateral Angle II-type malocclusion prevalences in functionally true right-sided (TRS) and non-right-sided (NRS) children having one or more left-sided functions (eye, hand, foot). A half cusp sagittal relationship of the upper and lower M1 and Dm2 was determined on dental casts of 1423 young American black and white children in a cross-sectional sample with the mean age of 8.5 years (range 6-12 years). Hand, foot and eye preferences were recorded at the age of 4 years during the Collaborative Perinatal Study. The prevalences of symmetric bilateral Angle I and II and asymmetric unilateral Angle II right and Angle II left cases were compared between TRS and NRS children using Chi-square analysis. In general, unilateral Angle II right occurred in 9 per cent of the population and Angle II left in 6.5 per cent. In moderate non-right sideness (two-thirds of left dominant functions), these proportions were 17 and 3 per cent, respectively, and in true right sidedness 8 and 6 per cent, respectively. TRS subjects were more symmetric (bilateral Angle I or II in 85 per cent of cases) than NRS children (80 per cent), and the differences were statistically significant (P < 0.02). These results highlight the anatomical relationships of structures supporting the occlusion and the symmetry/asymmetry of the neurocranium, cranial base, masticatory apparatus, and probably also the sidedness and the growth-stimulating effect of lateralized jaw function. Based on the results and considering earlier observations on brain asymmetry in functional lateralities, it can be hypothesized that a normal symmetric sagittal occlusal relationship is based on unilateral sagittal compensatory growth to maintain optimal bite, challenging early preventive orthodontic treatment in suspect unilateral Angle II cases.

Explore related subjects

Black PeopleChi-Square DistributionChildChild, PreschoolCross-Sectional StudiesDominance, CerebralDominance, OcularFacial AsymmetryFemaleFootFunctional LateralityHumansMaleMalocclusion, Angle Class IMalocclusion, Angle Class IISkullUnited StatesWhite PeopleBlack or African AmericanComparative StudyJournal ArticleResearch Support, U.S. Gov't, P.H.S.

Keep this discovery

Explore connections, maps & timelines

BibTeXRIS

T Heikkinen, T Poikela, M Grön, L Alvesalo. 2004. Unilateral Angle II in functional lateralities.. https://doi.org/10.1093/ejo%2F26.1.93

Cite the original work for its findings. Save a collection to share your selection of sources.

KEEP EXPLORING

Related citations

PubMed2007

BiDil for heart failure in black patients: implications of the U.S. Food and Drug Administration approval.

In 2005, the combination of hydralazine hydrochloride and isosorbide dinitrate was approved by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) for treating heart failure in black patients. In departing from its long history of approving drugs for general clinical indications without regard to demographic classification, the FDA cited the need to address racial disparities in health as an important contributor to their decision. The authors argue that this decision, although perhaps well-intentioned, was based on flawed scientific interpretation of trial results that claimed differential drug response by race and ignored the considerable literature on the cause of racial disparities in health and health care. Because of its potential impact on future drug approvals, the FDA's decision is a setback in the scientific and policy discourse on medical therapeutics and race and specifically hinders the efforts aimed at eliminating health and health care disparities.

Black People↗
PubMed2007

BiDil for heart failure in black patients: The U.S. Food and Drug Administration perspective.

Critics of the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) approval of the fixed combination of hydralazine hydrochloride, 37.5 mg, and isosorbide dinitrate, 20 mg, for treating heart failure in black patients have suggested that data were insufficient to distinguish treatment effects in black and white people; that distinctions based on race, rather than pathophysiology, were scientifically unreasonable; and that a "race-based" approval could be a commercial ploy to avoid a more expensive and prolonged full evaluation of a drug. The criticisms acknowledge that data supporting the approval came from a well-designed clinical trial in which self-identified black patients with heart failure who took hydralazine hydrochloride-isosorbide dinitrate with standard therapy experienced a statistically significant 43% (95% CI, 11% to 63%) reduction in mortality compared with those who took only the standard therapy. The criticisms do not always recognize that the decision to conduct the trial in only black patients reflected careful analyses of 2 previous trials in racially mixed patient populations that compared hydralazine hydrochloride-isosorbide dinitrate with placebo or with enalapril. Both trials showed little or no overall effect of hydralazine hydrochloride-isosorbide dinitrate in the mostly white patient population but hinted at a substantial effect in subsets of black patients. Perhaps most critically, the criticisms do not appreciate the urgency of strong scientific evidence of a substantial survival benefit in black patients. A serious attempt to avoid race-based approval by mandating study of a mixed population to identify a possible white patient-responder subset, particularly without a plausible hypothesis as to what that subset might be, would have required years of work, many thousands of patients, and wholly unreasonable delay in approval of a treatment whose effectiveness had been well-documented in the group for which it was intended.

Black People↗