Are distinct etiologies of upper airway obstruction in mouth-breathing children associated with different cephalometric patterns?

Franco, Letícia Paiva; Souki, Bernardo Quiroga; Cheib, Paula Loureiro; Abrão, Marcel; Pereira, Tatiana Bahia Junqueira; Becker, Helena Maria Gonçalves; Pinto, Jorge

doi:10.1016/j.ijporl.2014.12.013

Cited by 44 publications

(43 citation statements)

References 23 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…Depending on the obstructive etiological factor of the upper airways, different mandibular positions may occur -more anterior in patients with palatine tonsil hypertrophy when compared with that of individuals with pharyngeal tonsil hypertrophy, confirmed by cephalometric analysis 6 .…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 76%

“…The impact caused by upper airway obstruction results in changes in facial growth 2 ; posture, including lips and tongue 4 ; architecture and morphology of the maxilla 3 , hard palate 5 , and mandible 6 ; and consequently, in dental occlusion [7][8][9][10][11][12] , justifying the interest and need for intervention in altered respiratory mode by several health professionals such as speech-language pathologists, physiotherapists, and dental surgeons, in partnership with otorhinolaryngologists and pediatricians.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Interference of mouth breathing with orthodontic treatment duration in Angle Class II, Division 1

Rodrigues

Souza-Silva

Baldrighi

et al. 2017

Rev. odontol. UNESP

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

ResumoIntrodução: Diversos fatores podem interferir no tratamento ortodôntico, sendo importante verificar quais podem prejudicar o seu sucesso. Objetivo: Comparar a duração do tratamento ortodôntico entre respiradores orais e nasais em indivíduos com má oclusão de Angle Classe II, divisão 1. Material e método: Trata-se de um estudo observacional analítico, que utilizou prontuários de pacientes ortodônticos, compreendendo o período de 1999 a 2009, de uma Instituição de Ensino Superior do Estado de São Paulo. Os dados foram analisados pelas variáveis: idade, sexo, modo respiratório (oral ou nasal) e tempo de tratamento (inicial e final). Os pacientes foram pareados por idade e pelo tratamento utilizado. Para a análise dos dados utilizou-se o teste ANOVA (p<0,05). Resultado: A amostra foi composta por 36 indivíduos, sendo 16 do sexo feminino (10 respiradores nasais e 6 orais) e 20 do masculino (8 respiradores nasais e 12 orais), com idades entre nove e 15 anos (média:13,02). Quanto ao tempo de tratamento ortodôntico, os respiradores nasais permaneceram entre 27 e 74 meses (média 39,61) e os orais entre 29 e 50 meses (média 36,66), sem diferenças estatisticamente significativas entre os grupos de estudo. Conclusão: O modo respiratório alterado não foi uma variável que interferiu no tempo de tratamento na amostra do estudo.Descritores: Má oclusão; respiração bucal; tratamento ortodôntico. AbstractIntroduction: Several factors can interfere with orthodontic treatment, and it is important to verify which ones may hinder its success. Objective: To compare the duration of orthodontic treatment between nasal and mouth breathers with Angle Class II, Division 1 malocclusion. Material and method: This is an analytical observational study which used the records of orthodontic patients cared at a higher education institution in Sao Paulo state, Brazil, between 1999 and 2009. Data from the following variables were analyzed: age, gender, breathing mode (nasal or oral breathing), and treatment duration (beginning and end). Patients were matched for age and treatment used. The ANOVA test was applied to analyze the study data at 5% significance level (p<0.05). Result: The study sample consisted of 36 individuals, 16 female (10 nasal breathers and six mouth breathers) and 20 males (eight nasal breathers and 12 mouth breathers), aged nine to 15 years (mean age=13.021). As for orthodontic treatment duration, individuals in the nasal breathing group remained between 27 and 74 months (mean duration=39.61) under treatment, whereas treatment of individuals in the mouth breathing group lasted between 29 and 50 months (mean duration=36.66). No statistically significant differences were observed between the study groups. Conclusions: We conclude that the variable altered breathing mode does not interfere with treatment duration.

show abstract

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 76%

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Interference of mouth breathing with orthodontic treatment duration in Angle Class II, Division 1

Rodrigues

Souza-Silva

Baldrighi

et al. 2017

Rev. odontol. UNESP

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Obstructive adenoid and allergic rhinitis may cause not only nasal obstruction but also mouth breathing mode and other consequences [2][3][4] . The postural compensation for airflow maintenance may target not only the lip and tongue posture, but also the whole body, mainly in morphologically prone patterns 3 . The postural changes observed in children may determine a worsening in respiratory dysfunction, in which a feedback system may be installed, causing a progressive respiratory and musculoskeletal impairment 5 .…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…The head posture deviation, especially the forward head posture, may cause a compensating mechanism for the normal respiratory function maintenance 4,6,7 . Such alterations, if not corrected, may aggravate respiratory problems or even reflect negatively on adult life 3,5,8 . Therefore, the previous detection of postural misalignment and its relation with nasal obstruction may influence not only problem solving, but also the prevention of systemic consequences.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Nasal patency and craniocervical posture in scholar children

et al. 2017

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

One hundred thirty-three children were distributed into two groups: G1 (normal nasal patency -PNIF higher than 80% of predicted value) with 90 children; G2 (decreased nasal patency -PNIF lower than 80% of predicted value) with 43 children. Differences between groups were not found in CD and HHA measures. FE was significantly higher in G2 than G1 (p=0.023). Negative weak correlation between p=0.002) Palabras clave |

show abstract

Do breastfed children have a lower chance of developing mouth breathing? A systematic review and meta-analysis

et al. 2021

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Are distinct etiologies of upper airway obstruction in mouth-breathing children associated with different cephalometric patterns?

Cited by 44 publications

References 23 publications

Interference of mouth breathing with orthodontic treatment duration in Angle Class II, Division 1

Interference of mouth breathing with orthodontic treatment duration in Angle Class II, Division 1

Nasal patency and craniocervical posture in scholar children

Do breastfed children have a lower chance of developing mouth breathing? A systematic review and meta-analysis

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About