INTRODUCTION: The aim of this study was to assess the differences in airway shape and volume among subjects with various facial patterns. METHODS: Cone-beam computed tomography records of 62 nongrowing patients were used to evaluate the pharyngeal airway volume (superior and inferior compartments) and shape. This was done by using 3-dimensional virtual surface models to calculate airway volumes instead of estimates based on linear measurements. Subgroups of the sample were determined by anteroposterior jaw relationships and vertical proportions. RESULTS: There was a statistically significant relationship between the volume of the inferior component of the airway and the anteroposterior jaw relationship (P = 0.02), and between airway volume and both size of the face and sex (P = 0.02, P = 0.01). No differences in airway volumes related to vertical facial proportions were found. Skeletal Class II patients often had forward inclination of the airway (P <0.001), whereas skeletal Class III patients had a more vertically oriented airway (P = 0.002). CONCLUSIONS: Airway volume and shape vary among patients with different anteroposterior jaw relationships; airway shape but not volume differs with various vertical jaw relationships. The methods developed in this study make it possible to determine the relationship of 3-dimensional pharyngeal airway surface models to facial morphology, while controlling for variability in facial size.
INTRODUCTION: The aim of this study was to assess the differences in airway shape and volume among subjects with various facial patterns. METHODS: Cone-beam computed tomography records of 62 nongrowing patients were used to evaluate the pharyngeal airway volume (superior and inferior compartments) and shape. This was done by using 3-dimensional virtual surface models to calculate airway volumes instead of estimates based on linear measurements. Subgroups of the sample were determined by anteroposterior jaw relationships and vertical proportions. RESULTS: There was a statistically significant relationship between the volume of the inferior component of the airway and the anteroposterior jaw relationship (P = 0.02), and between airway volume and both size of the face and sex (P = 0.02, P = 0.01). No differences in airway volumes related to vertical facial proportions were found. Skeletal Class II patients often had forward inclination of the airway (P <0.001), whereas skeletal Class III patients had a more vertically oriented airway (P = 0.002). CONCLUSIONS: Airway volume and shape vary among patients with different anteroposterior jaw relationships; airway shape but not volume differs with various vertical jaw relationships. The methods developed in this study make it possible to determine the relationship of 3-dimensional pharyngeal airway surface models to facial morphology, while controlling for variability in facial size.