Facial asymmetry

RE: Facial asymmetry

Rob Davis — Mon, 21 Oct 2019 14:21:14 GMT

[quote user="Rachel Perry"] Is the mandible on the right shorter?[/quote]

Not visibly so, but as in the maxilla there are altered distances between teeth. The incisor/canine occlusion looks completely normal with no visible distortion (neither the owner nor the referring vet had noticed the maxillary abnormality) which would imply that overall jaw length is symmetrical in both maxilla and mandibles.

I'm sure you're right and there must have been some trauma, but it's interesting that the owner is unaware of any.

RE: Facial asymmetry

Rob Davis — Mon, 21 Oct 2019 14:12:58 GMT

[quote user="Bob Partridge"]

Trauma - also 105 is not evident on photo.

[/quote]

105 is there, Bob - follow the palatal rugae! There is a wider diastema between 104 and 105 than than between 204 and 205 so the overall maxillary length appears normal (there is no rostral malocclusion or externally obvious asymmetry).

RE: Facial asymmetry

Rachel Perry — Sun, 20 Oct 2019 17:39:51 GMT

Hi Rob,

But this is not just a class IV malocclusion. We have affected teeth in two quadrants, but in same location. If it were genetic then we'd expect malformed teeth throughout the mouth. Is the mandible on the right shorter?

RE: Facial asymmetry

Bob Partridge — Sun, 20 Oct 2019 12:07:24 GMT

Trauma - also 105 is not evident on photo.

RE: Facial asymmetry

Rob Davis — Sat, 19 Oct 2019 14:15:59 GMT

Hi Rachel, thanks for your input. My suspicion was trauma too, even if none has been observed by the owner.

However: "Class IV malocclusions are jaw length discrepancies, and therefore should be considered primarily a genetic condition" - quoted from the relevant chapter in Veterinary Orthodontics. Am I misunderstanding things?

RE: Facial asymmetry

Rachel Perry — Sat, 19 Oct 2019 13:25:33 GMT

I'd be more suspicious of local trauma.