Open Access
CC BY-NC-ND 4.0 · Sleep Sci 2025; 18(03): e358-e364
DOI: 10.1055/s-0045-1808071
Case Report

The Impact of Functional Jaw Orthopedics on Sleep-Related Breathing and Sleep-Related Bruxism: Case Series Study

1   School of Medical Sciences, Universidade Estadual de Campinas (UNICAMP), Campinas, SP, Brazil
,
1   School of Medical Sciences, Universidade Estadual de Campinas (UNICAMP), Campinas, SP, Brazil
2   Department of Biosciences and Oral Diagnosis, Institute of Science and Technology, Universidade Estadual Paulista (UNESP), São José dos Campos, SP, Brazil
› Author Affiliations

Funding Source The author(s) stated that they received funding from CAPES and DFB & Associados Ltda.
 

Abstract

Sleep-related breathing disorders (SRBDs) in children can lead to obstructive sleep apnea (OSA) in adulthood and sleep-related bruxism (SRB). Neuro occlusal rehabilitation and functional jaw orthopedics (NOR-FJO) show promise in addressing SRBDs and SRB to prevent OSA progression. However, consistent evidence for managing these conditions in children is lacking, highlighting the need for early intervention to mitigate long-term complications. The present article explores NOR-FJO's effects in preventing SRBDs and their progression to OSA. We report two cases of brothers with SRBD and SRB and the case of their father with OSA. The brothers, who had overjet and overbite, were treated with NOR-FJO. The third patient had a similar history in childhood, without treatment, and developed OSA, subsequently treated with a mandibular advancement device (MAD). Timely intervention for SRBDs is essential in preventing long-term health complications, and understanding treatment strategies is crucial for early intervention.


Introduction

Sleep-related breathing disorders (SRBDs) in children are associated with serious health implications, including the potential development of obstructive sleep apnea (OSA) in adulthood, which can lead to cardiovascular disease and neuropsychological changes.[1] [2] OSA, in addition to being underdiagnosed and undertreated, carries a substantial economic burden.[3] The prevalence of SRBDs in children, often associated with mouth breathing and sleep-related bruxism (SRB),[4] [5] raises concern due to the limited and inconclusive treatment options available, highlighting a significant gap in addressing these disorders.[6]

Reports indicate a close relationship between SRBDs and SRB, suggesting potential similarities in anatomical factors and cortical control.[7] Early detection and intervention for SRBDs prevent the progression to OSA in adulthood.[8] [9] In this context, neuro-occlusal rehabilitation and functional jaw orthopedics (NOR-FJO) emerge as promising interventions for maintaining the functional balance of the stomatognathic system.[10] Preliminary studies suggest that NOR-FJO may lead to significant improvements in functional stability, including the remission of snoring and the normalization of nasal breathing.[11] [12]

Understanding the core concepts of craniofacial skeletal growth and development, as well as the impact of interventions on growth potential, is vital to the success of early intervention and growth redirection. This knowledge is essential for understanding the potential effects of FJO on the development of craniofacial structures in children and adolescents.[13] [14] By elucidating the relationship between treatment strategies and growth dynamics, we can gain insights into how therapies such as NOR-FJO may influence both the immediate functional aspects and the long-term structural development of the orofacial complex, aiming to improve nasal breathing and prevent SRBD and SRB in children.

This case series aims to highlight the effects of NOR-FJO and its crucial role in preventing SRBDs, focusing on its ability to mitigate the progression of SRBDs and SRB into OSA in adulthood. By examining genetic and epigenetic factors, the current series emphasizes the importance of early intervention with NOR-FJO to reduce the long-term consequences of untreated SRBD.[15]


Case Description

The current study was conducted under the Case Reports (CARE) guidelines[16] and was approved by the appropriate ethics committee. Informed consent was obtained for all three cases involving two brothers and their father. The analysis was based on medical records from the first author's clinic, focusing on these three patients.

It is essential to highlight that diagnosing these disorders in children is a relatively recent practice. For over 30 years, the first author grounded their clinical practice in treating these disorders in children by addressing oral functions using NOR-FJO. At that time, clinical evaluations relied primarily on parental complaints and the patient's clinical history, as requesting examinations like sleep tests was not common practice. Although we now acknowledge the importance of polysomnography and specific questionnaires for achieving more accurate diagnoses in children,[17] in the case reports herein presented (1 and 2), the baseline diagnosis relied solely on clinical observations and parental complaints to identify sleep-related issues. The NOR-JFO clinical approach has always focused on promoting craniofacial growth and proper development with functional balance,[10] directing all interventions toward that goal.

Case 1

A 5-year-old boy presented with complaints from his parents about bruxism, snoring, respiratory allergies, and nocturnal mouth breathing. Clinical examination revealed class-II malocclusion, overbite, and overjet. Complementary radiographic examinations showed reduced upper airway space and underdevelopment of the lower facial region. The diagnosis indicated a lack of growth and development in the lower third of the face and restricted dynamic jaw movements. The treatment involved approximately eight years of intervention, including NOR-FJO, using functional jaw oral appliances (ICTP - Indirect Compose Tracks Planas, SN1 - Simões Network 1 with occlusal plan balance), and Planas direct tracks.


Case 2

A 9-year-old boy exhibited symptoms and clinical findings like those of his younger brother. He received a comparable diagnosis and underwent an eight-year therapeutic regimen involving the same NOR-FJO therapy approach.

[Table 1] shows the data of the Bimler Cephalometric Analysis of the basal, intermediate, and final status of cases 1 and 2 with the NOR-FJO treatment. We observed growth and development of the facial profile in both the upper and lower jaws, with greater magnitude in the lower third, as indicated by the anterior, vertical, and diagonal mandibular projection. The NOR-FJO intervention proved effective, addressing skeletal and dental disharmonies and improving function and esthetics for both children.

Table 1

Bimler cephalometric analysis of the basal, intermediate, and final treatment status of cases 1 and 2 neuro occlusal rehabilitation and functional jaw orthopedics

Variables

Case 1

Case 2

5 years and 1 month – October 2003

9 years and 8 months – May/2008

12 years and 4 months – January 2011

9 years and 4 months – October 2003

11 years and 6 months – November 2005

13 years and 10 months – May 2008

Factors

Value

Standard/Class.

Value

Standard/Class.

Value

Standard/Class.

Value

Standard/Class.

Value

Standard/Class.

Value

Standard/Class.

1

Upper profile ang. (N-A)

−1.07

Retrognathic

0.41

Orthognathic

0.93

Prognathic

1.75

Prognathic

2.69

Prognathic

5.22

Prognathic

2

Lower profile ang. (A-B)

19.97

Retrogenic

19.45

Retrogenic

14.81

Retrogenic

10.1

Retrogenic

10.14

Retrogenic

8.91

Orthogenic

3

Mandibular plane (Go-Me)

31.72

Leptognathic

31.07

Leptognathic

28.32

Mesognata

24.36

Mesognathic

25.24

Mesognathic

24.28

Mesognathic

4

Palatal plane (Ena-Enp)

−3.05

Retro-inclined

−0.51

Retro-inclined

−0.2

Ortho-inclination

−2.84

Retro-inclined

−1.90

Retro-inclined

−4.42

Retro-inclined

5

Clivus plane (Cls-Cli)

67.93

Mesobasal

69.64

Mesobasal

70.32

Leptobasal

66.71

Mesobasal

68.30

Mesobasal

68.08

Mesobasal

6

Stress axis (Cm-Me)

Post

Per

Post

Post

Post

Post

7

Cranial base (SN-FH)

11.51

Upward incline

11.96

Upward incline

12.86

Upward incline

11.63

Upward incline

12.43

Upward incline

12.36

Upward incline

8

Ascending ramus plane (C-Go Line)

2.92

Hyperflexion

−2.07

Hypoflexion

3.22

Hyperflexion

4.43

Hyperflexion

3.54

Hyperflexion

4.09

Hyperflexion

Linear measurements

9

Upper jaw (A'-T)

48.5

Medium

51.92

Medium

54.43

Large

49.79

Medium

52.62

Large

56.22

Extremely large

10

TMJ position (T-Tm)

29.02

Medium

34.79

Large

34.3

Large

31.35

Medium

32.8

Large

35.22

Large

11

Overjet (A'-B')

15.21

Class II - Convex

14.99

Class II - Convex

12.61

Class II - Convex

7.26

Class I - Straight

7.94

Class I - Straight

7.11

Class I - Straight

12

Mand. projected length (B'-Tm)

62.3

71.72

76.12

73.88

77.47

84.33

13

Facial depth (A'-Tm)

77.51

Medium

86.71

Large

88.73

Large

81.14

Medium

85.42

Large

91.44

Large

14

Anterior cranial base (N-S)

72.04

Medium

76.34

Long

76.73

Long

71.73

Medium

73.80

Medium

75.93

Long

15

Sella turcica height (S-FH)

18.22

Medium

18.50

Small

19.72

Medium

17.23

Small

16.01

Small

17.95

Small

16

Ascending ramus height (Co-Go)

46.43

Small

50.83

Medium

59.31

Medium

54.29

Medium

61.59

Large

61.36

Large

17

Nasion height (N-FH)

32.6

Large

32.32

Large

36.8

Large

31.7

Large

31.89

Large

34.21

Large

18

Total face height (N-M)

110.3

Small

123.96

Medium

134.31

Large

118.08

Medium

129.09

Large

136.14

Large

19

Alveolar height

Low

Low

Medium

Low

Low

Low

Angular analysis of skeletal profile

20

Profile angle (1 + 2)

18.9

Convex

19.86

Convex

15.73

Convex

11.85

Convex

12.83

Convex

14.13

Convex

21

Suborbital facial height (FH-M)

77.66

Medium

91.64

Large

97.51

Large

86.38

Large

97.20

Large

101.94

Large

22

FH-M - A' TM

Medium-faced - Meso

Medium-faced -Meso

Long -faced - Lepto

Long-faced - Lepto

Long-faced - Lepto

Long-faced - Lepto

23

Sub facial index (A' TM-A' M)

Dolic

Lepto

Lepto

Meso

Lepto

Lepto

24

Upper basal angle (4 + 5)

64.88

Mesoprosopic

69.13

Mesoprosopic

70.12

Leptoprosopic

63.87

Mesoprosopic

66.40

Mesoprosopic

63.66

Mesoprosopic

25

Lower basal angle (3–4)

34.77

Leptobasal

31.58

Leptobasal

28.53

Mesobasal

27.2

Mesobasal

27.14

Mesobasal

28.71

Mesobasal

26

Total basal angle

99.65

Mesoprosopic

100.71

Leptoprosopic

98.64

Mesoprosopic

91.07

Mesoprosopic

93.54

Mesoprosopic

92.36

Mesoprosopic

Skeletal-dental analysis

27

Upper incisor angle

84.38

Superior retrusion

103.23

Superior retrusion

106.82

Superior retrusion

113.71

Medium

114.04

Medium

113.1

Medium

28

Interincisor angle

160.6

Bi-retrusion

131.23

Medium

125.3

Medium

121.28

Medium

122.73

Medium

128.09

Medium

29

Lower incisor angle

115

Medium

125.54

Inferior protrusion

127.88

Inferior protrusion

125.01

Inferior protrusion

123.23

Inferior protrusion

118.81

Medium

30

Gonial angle

124.6

Leprognathic

119.00

Mesognathic

121.54

Leptognathic

118.78

Mesognathic

118.78

Mesognathic

118.37

Mesognathic

31

Mandibular diagonal (Gn-Co)

98.89

Small

111.99

Medium

121.8

Large

109.75

Medium

120.91

Large

126.27

Large

Abbreviations: The Bimler Cephalometric landmarks: S: Sella; N: Nasion; A: Point A; B: Point B; Go: Gonion; Me: Menton; Gn, Gnathion; ANS: Anterior Nasal Spine; PNS: Posterior Nasal Spine; Cls: Superior Clivus; Cii: Inferior Clivus; FH: Frankfurt Horizontal Plane; C: Capitulare; T: Vertical line in FH; Tm: Projection of the TMJ (Temporomandibular Joint); A’: Projection of Point A onto the FH plane; B’: Projection of Point B on the FH plane; Cm, Masticatory Center.


The Bimler Cephalometric Analysis follow-up from this period reveals a significant evolution of skeletal and dental parameters throughout the treatment.


Case 1

  1. Profile angles: The total basal angle remained within the mesoprosopic classification (99.65–98.64), indicating stability in facial proportion. The upper profile angle (N–A) increased from −1.07 to 0.93, suggesting a trend toward prognathism. The lower profile angle (A–B) was maintained from 19.97 to 19.45 (retrognathic) but reduced to 14.81 at follow-up, indicating an improvement in mandibular position.

  2. Linear measurements: The upper jaw increased from 48.50 (medium) to 54.43 mm (large), reflecting significant growth. Facial depth (A'–Tm) also increased from 77.15 (medium) to 86.71 mm (large). The cephalometric analysis showed changes in the ascending ramus height (Co-Go) from 46.43 to 59.31 mm and the mandibular diagonal (Gn-Co) from 98.89 to 121.8 mm over the treatment period.

  3. Skeletal-dental analysis: The lower incisor angle showed a trend of lower protrusion, while the upper incisors showed a trend of lower retrusion and interincisal angles remained within the average, suggesting stable dental relationships.


Case 2

  1. Profile angles: The total basal angle remained within the mesoprosopic classification, with values ranging from 91.07 to 92.36, indicating stability in facial proportion. The upper profile angle (N–A) increased from 1.75 to 5.22, suggesting a trend toward prognathism over time. The lower profile angle (A–B) improved from 10.1 (retrognathic) to 8.91 (orthognathic), indicating a correction in mandibular position relative to the upper profile.

  2. Linear measurements: The upper jaw (A'–T) increased from 49.79 (medium) to 56.22 mm (extremely large), and the facial depth (A'–TM) also increased from 81.14 (medium) to 91.44 mm (large), reflecting significant vertical and horizontal mandible growth. Initially, the intervention addressed signs of underdevelopment in the total face height (N-FH), which increased from 118.08 to 136.14 mm. Additionally, the mandibular diagonal (Gn-Co) improved from 109.75 (medium) to 126.27 mm (large).

  3. Skeletal-dental analysis: The lower incisor angle was corrected from 125.01 to 118.81, while the upper incisors and interincisal angles remained within average, suggesting stable dental relationships.

Significant improvements were observed in the adolescents following 8 years of NOR-FJO treatment, with sustained benefits documented over a follow-up period exceeding 10 years of posttreatment. These improvements included parental observation of their children's health, enhanced dental occlusion, increased posterior air space, normalized nasal breathing, and the cessation of snoring and bruxism, contributing to overall morpho-functional stability ([Fig. 1A,B]). In addition, [Table 2] presents the type-4 sleep test showing the normality of the oxygen desaturation index.

Zoom
Fig. 1 (A) Case 1 shows the baseline facial profile during treatment and the follow-up of photography and teleradiographs. (B) Case 2 shows the facial profile baseline during treatment and following up with photography and teleradiographs.

Case 3

The 47-year-old father of the two brothers reported symptoms of snoring, severe OSA, alcohol consumption, and panic syndrome. After declining continuous positive airway pressure (CPAP) treatment, he was advised to use a mandibular advancement device (MAD), with a treatment duration of three years. ([Fig. 2])

Table 2

Type-IV sleep test of cases 1 and 2

Variables

Type-IV sleep test

Case 1

Case 2

Age, year and month

24 years

29 years and 3 months

BMI, Kg/m2

22.4

19.9

TST, minutes

428.4

551.1

SpO2 minimum, %

90

91

SpO2 medium, %

94

95

ODI, events/hour

3.4

3.3

HR medium, bpm

58

56

Abbreviations: BMI, body mass index; TST, total sleep time; SpO2, oxygen saturation; ev./h, events per hour; ODI, oxygen desaturation index; HR, heart rate; bpm, beats per minute.


Furthermore, case 3 exhibited anatomical characteristics similar to those of his children ([Fig. 1A,B]), and after 3 years of using the MAD, the patient experienced improved sleep quality ([Table 3]).

Zoom
Fig. 2 Case 3 shows the facial profile baseline from photography and two teleradiographs, one in occlusion and the other in protrusion simulation, to observe the airway space.
Table 3

Type-I polysomnography test baseline and with MAD case 3

Variables

Case 3 - Type-I PSG test

Baseline

MAD

Date

June 2008

November 2009

June 2011

Age

47 years and 3 months

48 years and 8 months

50 years and 3 months

BMI, Kg/m2

26.6

26

26

SL, minutes

562.8

80

42.9

AI, events/hour

61.2

12.9

37.65

SE, events/hour

78.29

73.5

85.06

TST, minutes

374.5

301.5

366.5

TST REM, %

7.1

15.8

21.1

AHI, events/hour

48.87

19.9

12.77

SpO2 nadir, %

84

91

90

Abbreviations: AHI, apnea-hypopnea index; AI, arousal index; BMI, body mass index; ev/h, events per hour; MAD, mandibular advancement device; PSG, polysomnography; REM, rapid eye movement; SE, sleep efficiency; SL, sleep latency; SpO2, oxygen saturation; TST, total sleep time.


However, despite the initial positive outcomes, the patient chose to discontinue OSA therapy follow-up in favor of orthodontic treatment with another professional and subsequently underwent septal surgery. Tragically, the patient passed away at the age of 52 in 2013 due to a hemorrhagic stroke.



Discussion

The present case series explores the potential role of NOR-FJO in maintaining the functional balance of the stomatognathic system and its impact on the growth and development of craniofacial structures in children and adolescents. The association between untreated SRBDs in childhood and the development of OSA in adulthood with associated risks of cardiovascular disease and neuropsychological changes was the central focus of this study. The close relationship between mouth breathing and bruxism in sleep disorders underscores the importance of early diagnosis and treatment using minimally invasive techniques for the stomatognathic system.

The case of the father, who experienced OSA and associated comorbidities, illustrates the potential consequences of untreated SRBDs in childhood. The anatomical characteristics observed in the father, including class-II dental occlusion with deep bite and overjet, and restricted upper airway space, were also present in the children who received early NOR-FJO treatment. These findings suggest that early intervention with NOR-FJO may play an important role in preventing the progression of SRBDs to OSA in adulthood.

Despite the promising results observed in the cases analyzed, it is important to acknowledge the limitations of this study. The evidence presented is limited to three cases, which restricts the generalizability of the results. Additionally, long-term follow-up is necessary to validate the sustained efficacy of NOR-FJO. The father's decision to discontinue OSA therapy follow-up, opting instead for orthodontic treatment and septal surgery, followed by a tragic outcome, highlights the importance of continuous and careful management of patients with OSA.

The present study reinforces the potential effectiveness of NOR-FJO intervention in restoring oral functions, supporting the proper development of the structures involved, and maintaining the functional balance needed to address SRBDs. However, due to the limited and inconclusive nature of the treatment options currently available, further research and development of effective interventions for SRBDs are necessary. Guilleminault's work[8] and other existing literature indicate that early intervention can prevent the development of OSA, and our study highlights the significance of NOR-FJO in growth dynamics and its potential to influence not only immediate functional aspects but also long-term structural development of the orofacial complex.


Conclusion

In conclusion, NOR-FJO intervention may significantly improve nasal breathing, prevent SRBDs from childhood to adulthood, and mitigate the risk of associated complications later in life. However, the effectiveness of these interventions must be corroborated by additional studies with larger samples and longer follow-up periods.



Conflict of Interests

The authors have no conflict of interest to declare.

Acknowledgments

The authors would like to thank the patients and their families for authorizing the presentation of the case reports.

Patient Perspective

The patients reported positive perceptions of the treatments they received. They emphasized that, in addition to significantly improving facial aesthetics, the treatment played a crucial role in shaping their oral structure, providing better breathing conditions, and enhancing sleep quality. While the treatment was not the only possible intervention, the patients highlighted that it was extremely important in improving their initial conditions and bringing about positive changes in their lives.


One of the most valued aspects by the patients was the improvement in respiratory functions, which resulted in an enhanced quality of life, with fewer episodes of bruxism and nocturnal mouth breathing. These advancements contributed to an overall sense of wellbeing and significantly reduced symptoms associated with SRBDs.


The patients also noted that the treatment improved their physical health and positively impacted on their confidence and satisfaction with their facial appearance. The personalized treatment approach was recognized as a key factor in the positive outcomes, with the patient's expressing gratitude for the opportunity to avoid potential complications arising from untreated SRBDs.


Ethics Statement

We declare that the patients and family approved the study by signing informed consent forms.



Address for correspondence

Denise Fernandes Barbosa, DDS, MSc, PhD

Publication History

Received: 18 August 2024

Accepted: 18 February 2025

Article published online:
16 September 2025

© 2025. Brazilian Sleep Academy. This is an open access article published by Thieme under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution-NonDerivative-NonCommercial License, permitting copying and reproduction so long as the original work is given appropriate credit. Contents may not be used for commercial purposes, or adapted, remixed, transformed or built upon. (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/)

Thieme Revinter Publicações Ltda.
Rua Rego Freitas, 175, loja 1, República, São Paulo, SP, CEP 01220-010, Brazil


Zoom
Fig. 1 (A) Case 1 shows the baseline facial profile during treatment and the follow-up of photography and teleradiographs. (B) Case 2 shows the facial profile baseline during treatment and following up with photography and teleradiographs.
Zoom
Fig. 2 Case 3 shows the facial profile baseline from photography and two teleradiographs, one in occlusion and the other in protrusion simulation, to observe the airway space.