Frontiers in pediatrics · 2026
Influence of early myofunctional training on maxillary arch development in children aged 4-7 years with mild oral habits: a controlled pilot study.
СтатьяНазвание и аннотация: Перевод в очереди
Обработка статьи · этапы, ошибки и управление
Загрузка состояния…
Ошибки и ограничения
История · было → стало
Состояние обновляется каждые 5 секунд, пока блок открыт. Процент показывается только там, где известен объём работы. Пауза останавливает продолжение этапа; текущий запрос к источнику может завершиться.
Xiao Qiwen, Ma Junqing
Аннотация
BACKGROUND: Thumb sucking, the use of pacifier and mouth breathing in the early childhood may negatively influence the development of the maxillary arch. Myofunctional therapy has become a non-invasive intervention that can fulfil the dysfunction of the orofacial muscles, although the studies on its effectiveness in preventing arch underdevelopment are limited.
METHODS: The sample size (n = 64) was divided into two groups: the intervention group (n = 32) where the children were subjected to 12 months of structured myofunctional training and habit cessation counselling, and the control group (n = 32) where the children were subjected to habit cessation counselling only. Baseline, 6 months, and 12 months were made of dental impression and digital measurements of maxillary intercanine width, intermolar width and arch perimeter and palatal depth. Validated questionnaires and clinical examination protocol were used to measure oral habit frequency and orofacial muscle functioning.
RESULTS: After 12 months, the intervention group showed significantly greater increases in intercanine width (3.42 ± 1.18 mm vs. 1.87 ± 0.95 mm; p < 0.001) and intermolar width (2.76 ± 1.04 mm vs. 1.45 ± 0.88 mm; p < 0.001) compared with controls. Arch perimeter increased by 4.28 ± 1.56 mm in the intervention group vs. 2.34 ± 1.21 mm in controls (p < 0.001). Habit cessation was also higher in the intervention group (87.5% vs. 65.6%; p = 0.038). Orofacial muscle function scores improved significantly more in the intervention group (p < 0.001).
CONCLUSION: These findings provide preliminary evidence that early myofunctional training may have a beneficial effect on maxillary arch development in children with mild oral habits and may support preventive orthodontic strategies.
METHODS: The sample size (n = 64) was divided into two groups: the intervention group (n = 32) where the children were subjected to 12 months of structured myofunctional training and habit cessation counselling, and the control group (n = 32) where the children were subjected to habit cessation counselling only. Baseline, 6 months, and 12 months were made of dental impression and digital measurements of maxillary intercanine width, intermolar width and arch perimeter and palatal depth. Validated questionnaires and clinical examination protocol were used to measure oral habit frequency and orofacial muscle functioning.
RESULTS: After 12 months, the intervention group showed significantly greater increases in intercanine width (3.42 ± 1.18 mm vs. 1.87 ± 0.95 mm; p < 0.001) and intermolar width (2.76 ± 1.04 mm vs. 1.45 ± 0.88 mm; p < 0.001) compared with controls. Arch perimeter increased by 4.28 ± 1.56 mm in the intervention group vs. 2.34 ± 1.21 mm in controls (p < 0.001). Habit cessation was also higher in the intervention group (87.5% vs. 65.6%; p = 0.038). Orofacial muscle function scores improved significantly more in the intervention group (p < 0.001).
CONCLUSION: These findings provide preliminary evidence that early myofunctional training may have a beneficial effect on maxillary arch development in children with mild oral habits and may support preventive orthodontic strategies.