Body biomechanics and dental occlusion are related, but this interaction is not fully elucidated. The aim of this study was to investigate the association between body posture and occlusion in patients with and without dental pathology. A cross-sectional study was carried out with 29 patients divided into a control group and a group with pathology (malocclusions). Body posture was evaluated by dynamic baropodometry, analyzing parameters such as the line of gait and the anteroposterior and lateral position of the center of pressure (CoP). Occlusion was classified radiographically according to the sagittal skeletal relationship. Results showed significant differences in mean position phase line between groups (p = 0.01–0.02), with means of 115.85 ± 16.98 mm vs. 95.74 ± 24.47 mm (left side) and 109.03 ± 18.03 mm vs. 91.23 ± 20.80 mm (right side) for controls and pathologies, respectively. The effect size was large (Cohen’s d 0.97 and 0.92). There were no differences in the anteroposterior (p = 0.38) or lateral (p = 0.78) position of the CoP. In gait analysis, significant differences were observed in left (548.89 ± 127.50 N vs. 360.15 ± 125.78 N, p < 0.001) and right (535.71 ± 131.57 N vs. 342.70 ± 108.40 N, p < 0.001) maximum heel strength between groups. The results suggest an association between body posture and occlusion, although further studies are needed to confirm this relationship. An integrated postural and occlusal approach could optimize the diagnosis and treatment of dental patients.

Objectives: To describe foot and global postural deviations in a mixed-age university-clinic sample and examine their associations with cephalometrically defined sagittal skeletal class and facial growth pattern. Methods: This cross-sectional study included 98 individuals aged 8–62 years; 76 participants (77.6%) were adults. Foot posture was assessed with the FPI-6 and plantar footprint, global posture by sagittal-plane visual analysis, and centre-of-pressure behaviour by instrumented gait in a subsample. Associations were tested using chi-square or Fisher–Freeman–Halton exact tests, Cramér’s V, and Bonferroni-adjusted p-values. Age- and sex-adjusted continuous modelling was not possible because complete data could not be reliably reconstructed. Results: Supination was the most frequent FPI-6 category (45.9%), and 30.8% showed ideal alignment. Sagittal skeletal class was not associated with any outcome (all p ≥ 0.341; all pBonf = 1.000). Facial pattern was associated with FPI-6 in the primary analysis (exact p = 0.007; V = 0.265), but not after Bonferroni correction (pBonf = 0.070). The five-category sensitivity analysis remained significant (exact p = 0.0016; pBonf = 0.016; V = 0.353), although intermediate groups were small. Conclusions: No detectable association was found between sagittal skeletal class and foot, postural, or gait variables. The facial-pattern finding remains exploratory, and the lack of age and sex adjustment limits inference.