Journal Article

Craniofacial morphological differences between Down syndrome and maxillary deficiency children

Flávia Aline Silva Jesuino and José Valladares-Neto

in The European Journal of Orthodontics

Published on behalf of European Orthodontics Society

Volume 35, issue 1, pages 124-130
Published in print February 2013 | ISSN: 0141-5387
Published online September 2011 | e-ISSN: 1460-2210 | DOI:
Craniofacial morphological differences between Down syndrome and maxillary deficiency children

More Like This

Show all results sharing this subject:

  • Restorative Dentistry and Orthodontics


Show Summary Details


Maxillary deficiency is one of the facial features of Down syndrome (DS). Differences in craniofacial morphology between DS and nonsyndromic skeletal Class III malocclusion with maxillary deficiency remain unclear. This study compared the craniofacial differences of white male children from Central–Western Brazil with DS (n = 30, mean age: 8 years 3 months), skeletal Class III profile with maxillary deficiency (n = 30, mean age: 7 years 9 months), and skeletal Class I profile (n = 30, mean age: 8 years 2 months), using lateral cephalometric radiographs. The differences among the three groups were compared with analysis of variance and Tukey’s tests. The DS group showed reduced anterior cranial base (S–N, P < 0.001] and facial dimensions (Co–Gn, N–Me, N–ANS, and ANS–Me, P < 0.001), except in posterior dimensions (S–Go, P < 0.005; Ar–Go, P > 0.005). Maxillary length (Co–A, P < 0.001) and facial convexity (NAP, P < 0.005) were reduced when compared with the control group, although maxillary position to cranial base (SNA, P < 0.005) was within the normal range. A flattened cranial base (BaSN, P < 0.001) also contributed to differentiating DS from nonsyndromic groups. The group with maxillary deficiency showed a more unfavourable maxillomandibular relationship (MMD, P < 0.001) and a mandibular protrusion (SNB, P < 0.001). Subjects with DS differed from Class III with maxillary deficiency with respect to the flatter cranial base and reduced maxillary length. Maxillary deficiency was not so expressive in the face of DS subjects because of the overall reduction in craniofacial dimensions.

Journal Article.  4745 words.  Illustrated.

Subjects: Restorative Dentistry and Orthodontics

Full text: subscription required

How to subscribe Recommend to my Librarian

Users without a subscription are not able to see the full content. Please, subscribe or login to access all content.