Orofacial Airway Dimensions in Subjects with Class I Malocclusion and Different Growth Patterns

Overview

Journal Angle Orthod

Specialty Dentistry

Date 2011 Feb 9

PMID 21299381

Citations 37

Authors

Faruk Izzet Ucar

Tancan Uysal

Affiliations

Soon will be listed here.

Abstract

Objective: To test the null hypotheses that there are no significant differences in craniofacial structures and orofacial airway dimensions in subjects with Class I malocclusion and different growth patterns.

Materials And Methods: Lateral cephalometric radiographs of 31 low angle (mean age, 14.0 ± 2.0 years; range, 10.3-16.5 years), 40 high angle (mean age, 12.7 ± 1.6 years; range, 10.1-16.2 years), and 33 normal growth (mean age, 13.9 ± 1.3 years; range, 11.2-16.8 years) subjects with Class I malocclusion were examined. In total, 34 measurements (27 craniofacial and 7 orofacial airways) were evaluated. Groups were constituted according to the SN-MP angle. Group differences were analyzed with analysis of variance (ANOVA) and the Tukey test, at the P < .05 level.

Results: According to ANOVA, only 5 of the 27 craniofacial measurements showed no statistically significant differences among different growth patterns. For orofacial airway measurements, statistically significant differences were found in nasopharyngeal airway space (P < .01), palatal tongue space (P < .05), upper posterior airway space (PAS) (P < .05), and tongue gap (P < .001). No statistically significant orofacial airway differences were determined between low angle and normal growth subjects. High angle subjects had a larger tongue gap than those with normal and low angles (P < .01). Additionally, nasopharyngeal airway space (P < .01) and upper PAS (P < .05) measurements were larger and palatal tongue space (P < .05) was narrower in low angle than in high angle subjects.

Conclusions: The null hypotheses were rejected. Significant differences in craniofacial morphology and orofacial airway dimensions of Class I subjects with different growth patterns were identified.

Citing Articles

Using a Portable Ventilatory Airway Screening (PVAS) Device to Evaluate the Difference Between Upper Airway Breathing Pressure and Respiratory Flow in Skeletal Class I and Class II Growing Individuals With Retrognathic Mandible.

Hazare A, Kamble R, Shrivastav S, Shenoy U, Gillani R Cureus. 2024; 16(6):e62898.

PMID: 39040758 PMC: 11262777. DOI: 10.7759/cureus.62898.

Assessment of maximal inspiratory and expiratory pressures in skeletal Class II patients with different growth patterns.

Rangarajan H, Ayub I, Padmanabhan S Angle Orthod. 2024; 94(3):328-335.

PMID: 38639454 PMC: 11050465. DOI: 10.2319/071723-496.1.

[Comparison of pharyngeal airway space on lateral head radiographs of skeletal class I and II individuals].

Razo Huillca S Rev Cient Odontol (Lima). 2024; 10(4):e128.

PMID: 38390606 PMC: 10880722. DOI: 10.21142/2523-2754-1004-2022-128.

Three-dimensional assessment of Upper Airway in Class III patients with different facial patterns.

De Nordenflycht D, Corona T, Figueroa A J Clin Exp Dent. 2023; 15(10):e821-e826.

PMID: 37933396 PMC: 10625683. DOI: 10.4317/jced.60856.

Heritability of cephalometric variables of airway morphology in twins with completed active growth.

Sidlauskiene M, Sidlauskas M, Sidlauskas A, Juzenas S, Lopatiene K BMC Oral Health. 2023; 23(1):244.

PMID: 37106360 PMC: 10134508. DOI: 10.1186/s12903-023-02919-x.

References

Vig K . Nasal obstruction and facial growth: the strength of evidence for clinical assumptions. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop. 1998; 113(6):603-11. DOI: 10.1016/s0889-5406(98)70219-7. View

de Freitas M, Alcazar N, Janson G, Freitas K, Henriques J . Upper and lower pharyngeal airways in subjects with Class I and Class II malocclusions and different growth patterns. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop. 2006; 130(6):742-5. DOI: 10.1016/j.ajodo.2005.01.033. View

Hiyama S, Suda N, Ishii-Suzuki M, Tsuiki S, Ogawa M, Suzuki S . Effects of maxillary protraction on craniofacial structures and upper-airway dimension. Angle Orthod. 2002; 72(1):43-7. DOI: 10.1043/0003-3219(2002)072<0043:EOMPOC>2.0.CO;2. View

Muto T, Yamazaki A, Takeda S . A cephalometric evaluation of the pharyngeal airway space in patients with mandibular retrognathia and prognathia, and normal subjects. Int J Oral Maxillofac Surg. 2008; 37(3):228-31. DOI: 10.1016/j.ijom.2007.06.020. View

Zhong Z, Tang Z, Gao X, Zeng X . A comparison study of upper airway among different skeletal craniofacial patterns in nonsnoring Chinese children. Angle Orthod. 2009; 80(2):267-74. PMC: 8973238. DOI: 10.2319/030809-130.1. View

Joseph A, Elbaum J, Cisneros G, Eisig S . A cephalometric comparative study of the soft tissue airway dimensions in persons with hyperdivergent and normodivergent facial patterns. J Oral Maxillofac Surg. 1998; 56(2):135-9; discussion 139-40. DOI: 10.1016/s0278-2391(98)90850-3. View

Akcam M, Toygar T, Wada T . Longitudinal investigation of soft palate and nasopharyngeal airway relations in different rotation types. Angle Orthod. 2003; 72(6):521-6. DOI: 10.1043/0003-3219(2002)072<0521:LIOSPA>2.0.CO;2. View

Gungor A, Turkkahraman H . Effects of airway problems on maxillary growth: a review. Eur J Dent. 2009; 3(3):250-4. PMC: 2741199. View

Chung C, Mongiovi V . Craniofacial growth in untreated skeletal Class I subjects with low, average, and high MP-SN angles: a longitudinal study. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop. 2003; 124(6):670-8. DOI: 10.1016/j.ajodo.2003.02.004. View

10.

SCHUDY F . THE ROTATION OF THE MANDIBLE RESULTING FROM GROWTH: ITS IMPLICATIONS IN ORTHODONTIC TREATMENT. Angle Orthod. 1965; 35:36-50. DOI: 10.1043/0003-3219(1965)035<0036:TROTMR>2.0.CO;2. View

11.

Ozbek M, Miyamoto K, Lowe A, Fleetham J . Natural head posture, upper airway morphology and obstructive sleep apnoea severity in adults. Eur J Orthod. 1998; 20(2):133-43. DOI: 10.1093/ejo/20.2.133. View

12.

Oktay H, Ulukaya E . Maxillary protraction appliance effect on the size of the upper airway passage. Angle Orthod. 2008; 78(2):209-14. DOI: 10.2319/122806-535.1. View

13.

Tourne L . Growth of the pharynx and its physiologic implications. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop. 1991; 99(2):129-39. DOI: 10.1016/0889-5406(91)70115-D. View

14.

Johnston C, Richardson A . Cephalometric changes in adult pharyngeal morphology. Eur J Orthod. 1999; 21(4):357-62. DOI: 10.1093/ejo/21.4.357. View

15.

Nielsen I . Vertical malocclusions: etiology, development, diagnosis and some aspects of treatment. Angle Orthod. 1991; 61(4):247-60. DOI: 10.1043/0003-3219(1991)061<0247:VMEDDA>2.0.CO;2. View

16.

Creekmore T . Inhibition or stimulation of the vertical growth of the facial complex, its significance to treatment. Angle Orthod. 1967; 37(4):285-97. DOI: 10.1043/0003-3219(1967)037<0285:IOSOTV>2.0.CO;2. View

17.

Kerr W . The nasopharynx, face height, and overbite. Angle Orthod. 1985; 55(1):31-6. DOI: 10.1043/0003-3219(1985)055<0031:TNFHAO>2.0.CO;2. View

18.

Jena A, Singh S, Utreja A . Sagittal mandibular development effects on the dimensions of the awake pharyngeal airway passage. Angle Orthod. 2010; 80(6):1061-7. PMC: 8929504. DOI: 10.2319/030210-125.1. View

19.

Ceylan I, Oktay H . A study on the pharyngeal size in different skeletal patterns. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop. 1995; 108(1):69-75. DOI: 10.1016/s0889-5406(95)70068-4. View

20.

Aboudara C, Nielsen I, Huang J, Maki K, Miller A, Hatcher D . Comparison of airway space with conventional lateral headfilms and 3-dimensional reconstruction from cone-beam computed tomography. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop. 2009; 135(4):468-79. DOI: 10.1016/j.ajodo.2007.04.043. View