G Di Carlo1, A Polimeni, B Melsen, P M Cattaneo. 1. Department of Oral and Maxillofacial Science, Pediatric Dentistry Unit, Sapienza University of Rome, Rome, Italy; Section of Orthodontics, Department of Dentistry, Health, Aarhus University, Aarhus, Denmark.
Abstract
OBJECTIVES: To assess whether morphology and dimension of the upper airway differ between patients characterized by various craniofacial morphology. SETTING AND SAMPLE POPULATION: Ninety young adult patients from the Postgraduate Clinic, Section of Orthodontics, Department of Dentistry, Health, Aarhus University, Denmark, with no obvious signs of respiratory diseases and no previous adeno-tonsillectomy procedures. Thirty patients were characterized as Class I (-0.5 < ANB < 4.5), 30 as Class II (ANB > 4.5), and 30 as Class III (ANB < -0.5). MATERIAL AND METHODS: Cone-beam computed tomography (CBCT) scans obtained in a supine position for all patients. Cephalometric landmarks were identified in 3D. Sagittal and transversal dimensions, cross sections, and partial and total volumes of the upper airway were correlated with the cephalometric measurements in all three planes of space. The cross-sectional minimal area of the upper airway was assessed as well. RESULTS: No statistical significant relationships between dimension and morphology of upper airways and skeletal malocclusion were found. CONCLUSION: Differences in craniofacial morphology as identified by the sagittal jaw relationship were not correlated with variation in upper airway volumes. A clinical significant relation was detected between minimal area and total upper airway volume.
OBJECTIVES: To assess whether morphology and dimension of the upper airway differ between patients characterized by various craniofacial morphology. SETTING AND SAMPLE POPULATION: Ninety young adult patients from the Postgraduate Clinic, Section of Orthodontics, Department of Dentistry, Health, Aarhus University, Denmark, with no obvious signs of respiratory diseases and no previous adeno-tonsillectomy procedures. Thirty patients were characterized as Class I (-0.5 < ANB < 4.5), 30 as Class II (ANB > 4.5), and 30 as Class III (ANB < -0.5). MATERIAL AND METHODS: Cone-beam computed tomography (CBCT) scans obtained in a supine position for all patients. Cephalometric landmarks were identified in 3D. Sagittal and transversal dimensions, cross sections, and partial and total volumes of the upper airway were correlated with the cephalometric measurements in all three planes of space. The cross-sectional minimal area of the upper airway was assessed as well. RESULTS: No statistical significant relationships between dimension and morphology of upper airways and skeletal malocclusion were found. CONCLUSION: Differences in craniofacial morphology as identified by the sagittal jaw relationship were not correlated with variation in upper airway volumes. A clinical significant relation was detected between minimal area and total upper airway volume.
Authors: Jan Hourfar; Gero Stefan Michael Kinzinger; Hartmut Feifel; Verena Maria Vehr; Jörg Alexander Lisson Journal: J Orofac Orthop Date: 2017-06-28 Impact factor: 1.938
Authors: Jan Hourfar; Gero Stefan Michael Kinzinger; Luisa Katharina Meißner; Jörg Alexander Lisson Journal: J Orofac Orthop Date: 2016-11-28 Impact factor: 1.938
Authors: Stig Isidor; Gabriele Di Carlo; Marie A Cornelis; Flemming Isidor; Paolo M Cattaneo Journal: Angle Orthod Date: 2018-05-29 Impact factor: 2.079
Authors: Gert-Jan Hassing; Vincent The; Eman Shaheen; Constantinus Politis; Maria Cadenas de Llano-Pérula Journal: Clin Oral Investig Date: 2021-11-26 Impact factor: 3.573
Authors: Sirwan Fernandez Gurani; Gabriele Di Carlo; Paolo M Cattaneo; Jens Jørgen Thorn; Else Marie Pinholt Journal: J Oral Maxillofac Res Date: 2016-03-31