| Literature DB >> 29468332 |
Xuefang Ding1,2, Shoichi Suzuki3, Momotoshi Shiga4, Naoto Ohbayashi5, Toru Kurabayashi5, Keiji Moriyama2.
Abstract
The aims of this study were to reveal the usefulness of a newly developed method for measuring tongue volume (TV) and oral cavity capacity (OCC) and to assess the relationship between them. The tongue was coated with a contrast agent, and the TV and OCC were determined using cone-beam computed tomography (CBCT). We enrolled 20 adults who were scheduled to undergo CBCT to evaluate the relationship of the third molar roots to the alveolar nerve before molar extraction. Each participant's tongue was coated with a contrast agent, and CBCT of the tongue and oral cavity was performed. Using computer software, we evaluated reconstructed 3D images of the TV, oral cavity proper volume (OCPV), and OCC. The mean TV was 47.07 ± 7.08 cm3. The mean OCPV and OCC were 4.40 ± 2.78 cm3 and 51.47 ± 6.46 cm3, respectively. There was a significant correlation between TV and OCC (r = 0.920; p < 0.01) but not between TV and OCPV. The mean TV/OCC ratio was 91 ± 5%. The proposed method produced CBCT images that enabled effective measurement of TV and OCC. This simple method of measuring TV and OCC will be useful in the diagnosis on the tongues with abnormal size.Entities:
Keywords: BMI; Cone-beam CT; Oral cavity capacity; Radiocontrast agent; Tongue volume
Mesh:
Substances:
Year: 2018 PMID: 29468332 PMCID: PMC5996000 DOI: 10.1007/s10266-017-0335-0
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Odontology ISSN: 1618-1247 Impact factor: 2.634
Fig. 1CBCT images of the oral cavity. a–c CBCT images of the oral cavity coated with radiocontrast agent. A clear border line is visible. Red arrows indicate the lingual frenulum. d–f CBCT images of the oral cavity without radiocontrast coating. The boundary of the tongue is indistinct, and the lingual frenulum is not distinguishable
Fig. 2Landmarks, reference planes, and outlines for volume analysis. a, b Outlines in the mid-sagittal section, showing the area measured for the oral cavity proper and the tongue. c 3D view of the mid-sagittal section
Fig. 33D views of the tongue (red) and oral cavity proper (white)
Comparisons and correlations of repeated measurements
| Differences |
|
|
|
| |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Mean ± SD | |||||
| TV (cm3) | − 1.11 ± 1.30 | − 1.904 | 0.130 | 0.959 | 0.010* |
| OCPV (cm3) | 0.03 ± 0.13 | 0.442 | 0.681 | 0.999 | 0.000** |
TV tongue volume; OCPV oral cavity proper volume
*p < 0.05; **p < 0.001
Comparisons of characteristics and measurements between males and females
| Mean ± SD | Male | Female |
|
|
|
| |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Age (year) | 30.1 ± 2.3 | 30.8 ± 2.2 | 29.4 ± 2.3 | 0.355 | 0.559 | 1.315 | 0.205 |
| BMI (kg/m2) | 21.4 ± 2.6 | 21.9 ± 2.9 | 20.9 ± 2.4 | 1.308 | 0.268 | − 0.836 | 0.414 |
| TV (cm3) | 47.07 ± 7.08 | 49.18 ± 7.72 | 44.97 ± 6.04 | 0.672 | 0.423 | 1.356 | 0.192 |
| OCPV (cm3) | 4.40 ± 2.78 | 3.56 ± 2.37 | 5.23 ± 3.03 | 0.028 | 0.869 | − 1.366 | 0.189 |
| OCC (cm3) | 51.47 ± 6.46 | 52.74 ± 6.79 | 50.20 ± 6.20 | 0.004 | 0.950 | 0.874 | 0.394 |
| 91.4 ± 5.4 | 93.1 ± 4.7 | 89.6 ± 5.7 | 0.064 | 0.804 | 1.455 | 0.163 |
TV tongue volume; OCPV oral cavity proper volume; OCC oral cavity capacity; R ratio of tongue volume to oral cavity capacity; BMI body mass index
Correlations between TV and BMI, OCC and BMI, R and BMI, TV and OCPV, and TV and OCC
| TV versus BMI | OCC versus BMI | TV versus OCPV | TV versus OCC | ||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
| 0.502 | 0.547 | 0.074 | − 0.411 | 0.920 |
|
| 0.024* | 0.013* | 0.757 | 0.072 | 0.000** |
TV tongue volume; OCPV oral cavity proper volume; OCC oral cavity capacity; R ratio of tongue volume to oral cavity capacity; BMI body mass index
*p < 0.05; **p < 0.001