Peer-reviewed veterinary case report
Normal range of jaw joint movement in cats and what affects it
By Minei, Sergio et al.·Published in Frontiers in veterinary science·2024·Department of Dentistry, Italy·View original on PubMed →
PetCaseFinder translated the abstract of this peer-reviewed paper into plain English so pet owners can read it. We do not publish original research — every detail traces back to the citation above. How we work →
Original publication title: Normal variation of clinical mobility of the mandibular symphysis in cats.
- Species:
- cat
Plain-English summary
A study looked at the normal movement of the jawbone in cats during dental procedures. They found that most cats had some movement in their jaw joint, with only a small number showing signs of fusion. The researchers noted that older cats and those with certain dental issues had more movement in their jaw, while flat-faced breeds had less. Overall, the findings suggest that some variation in jaw mobility is normal in cats, and significant fusion of the jawbone is uncommon.
People also search for: cat jaw movement normal · why is my cat's jaw not moving · dental issues in older cats · brachycephalic cat jaw problems
Abstract
INTRODUCTION: The primary objective of this retrospective study was to document the normal variation of clinical mobility of the mandibular symphysis in cats and possible associations with bodyweight, age, sex, sexual status, breed and skull morphology. Secondarily, the radiographic appearance of the mandibular symphysis and possible associations with the analyzed data were evaluated. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Two hundred and sixteen cats of 15 different breeds that underwent maxillofacial, oral and dental procedures from April 2015 to December 2021 were included. Clinical mobility was evaluated under general anesthesia using a 0 to 3 scale in lateromedial (LM) and dorsoventral (DV) directions. The symphysis was radiographically classified on the occlusal radiographic view of the rostral mandibles as fused or open, and with parallel or divergent margins. RESULTS: Bodyweight ranged from 2.2 to 12.5 kg (median 4.0 kg), age from 4 months to 17 years and 4 months (median 6 years and 4 months). At the first evaluation DV symphyseal mobility was 0 in 177 cases (82%), 1 in 32 cases (14.8%) and 2 in 7 cases (3.2%), LM mobility was 0 in 61 cases (28.3%), 1 in 110 cases (50.9%) and 2 in 45 cases (20.8%). 81.1% of the radiographs were included in the statistical analysis. Three symphyses (1.6%) were classified as fused and 190 (98.4%) as open, 129 (68.8%) having divergent margins and 61 (31.6%) parallel. One hundred and forty-eight cases (76.7%) did not show the presence of odontoclastic replacement resorption on the canine teeth (TR subgroup 1), 23 (11.9%) showed stage ≤3 lesions (TR subgroup 2) and 22 (11.4%) stage 4 lesions (TR subgroup 3). Logistic regression models exploring factors that affected DV and LM mobility were statistically significant ( < 0.0001; < 0.0001) with an increase in LM mobility predicting an increase in DV mobility, and vice versa. An increase in DV mobility was associated with an increase in age and in having resorptive lesions. A decrease in LM symphyseal mobility was associated with being brachycephalic. CONCLUSION: The great majority of cases showed some degree of LM symphyseal mobility, and 18% showed DV mobility. Symphyseal bony fusion is rare but possible.
Find similar cases for your pet
PetCaseFinder finds other peer-reviewed reports of pets with the same symptoms, plus a plain-English summary of what was tried across them.
Search related cases →Original publication on PubMed: https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/38440387/