-
Adedolapo,
Thanks for your message.
“1.In mosby’s it has buccal corridor as a soft tissue finding in the transverse plane, is this not correct?”
Yes, that is correct. Sorry if confusing above – I am saying Yes, it is a soft tissue finding that also can correlate with a skeletal finding.
“2. And for the purposes of this exam, would you say a narrow buccal corridor would automatically warrant expansion of the maxillary arch?”
No, not automatically. The notable exception is when there is a “relative transverse discrepancy” of the maxilla versus an “absolute”. This is talked about in orthognathic cases. An “absolute” would be the width of 1st Molar to 1st molar (and/or canine to canine) width shows maxillary deficiency. A “relative” discrepancy is when you look at them clinically see crossbites but it appears that way because the maxilla is so deficient in the AP. This is best seen when you hold the modules and then simulate a LeFort – all of a sudden if you advance the maxilla there are no crossbites and great occlusion. It also fills the buccal corridors.
Does that make sense? It’s a bit tricky to explain without holding models in hand.
Good thoughts,
Carter