Computed tomography: A three-dimensional study of the nasal airway

Montgomery, William M.; Vig, Peter S.; Staab, Edward V.; Matteson, Stephen R.

doi:10.1016/0002-9416(79)90223-9

Cited by 94 publications

(49 citation statements)

References 27 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…Nasal cavity volume has been determined using silicone rubber casts of the airways of rat (0.4 cm3), beagle dog (20 cm3), and rhesus monkey (8 cm3). The volume of the human nasal cavity was estimated to be 25 cm3 by using computer tomograms of the nasal airways from human cadavers (10). Using data from airway cross-sectional measurements obtained from magnetic resonance images, the nasal cavity volume of one human subject was 16 cm3 (R. A. Guilmette, personal communication).…”

Section: Gross Anatomymentioning

confidence: 99%

Comparative Pathology of the Nasal Mucosa in Laboratory Animals Exposed to Inhaled Irritants

Harkema¹

1990

Environmental Health Perspectives

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The nasal cavity is susceptible to chemically induced iinjury as a result of exposure to inhaled irritants. Some responses of the nasal mucosa to inhaled toxicants are species specific. These species-related differences in response may be due to variations in structural, physiologic, and biochemical factors, such as gross nasal cavity structure, distribution of luminal epithelial cell populations along the nasal airway, intranasal airflow patterns, nasal mucociliary apparatus, and nasal xenobiotic metabolism among animal species. This paper reviews the comparative anatomy and irritant-induced pathology of the nasal cavity in laboratory animals. The toxicologist, pathologist, and environmental risk assessor must have a good working knowledge of the similarities and differences in normal nasal structure and response to injury among species before they can select animal models for nasal toxicity studies, recognize toxicantinduced lesions in the nasal airway, and extrapolate experimental results to estimate the possible effects of an inhaled toxicant on the human nasal airway.

show abstract

Section: Gross Anatomymentioning

confidence: 99%

Comparative Pathology of the Nasal Mucosa in Laboratory Animals Exposed to Inhaled Irritants

Harkema¹

1990

Environmental Health Perspectives

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…The variables measuring the size of the airway on the frontal cephalogram were also, with one exception, not correlated to the facial morphology. The morphology of the nasal cavity is too complicated to make the use of a standard frontal cephalogram meaningful (Montgomery et al 1979). Also, the largest resistance to the airflow in the nasal area is found at the isthmus of the nares (Bachmann 1982), which is not reproduced on the radiograph.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

A comparison between anamnestic, rhinomanometric and radiological methods of diagnosing mouthbreathing

Thüer¹,

Küster²,

Ingervall³

1989

European Journal of Orthodontics

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

SUMMARY Three methods of evaluating the mode of breathing were applied in 119 children aged 7-15 years who were to start orthodontic treatment for various malocclusions. The three methods were: the history, rhinomanometric recording of the nasal airflow and determination of the size of the airway on profile and frontal cephalograms. The variables describing the mode of breathing were correlated with the facial morphology and the natural position of the head and the cervical spine as recorded with profile cephalometry.There were no correlations between the results of the evaluation of the mode of breathing obtained with the three methods. Nor were there any correlations between these and the position of the head or the cervical spine. A history of mouth-breathing, the rhinomanometrically determined airflow through the nose and the size of the airway on the profile cephalogram were, however, correlated with the long face morphology characteristic of mouth-breathing.A diagnosis of mouth-breathing should be based on different supplementary methods, the history and the size of the airway on the profile cephalogram being at least as valuable as the rhinomanometric recording.

show abstract

“…The cross-sections of the nasal passages were based on the geometries from tomographic pictures by Montgomery et al (1979) as shown in Fig. 1.…”

Section: Researchmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…However, considering the large human intersubject differences among the population, this should not be considered unusual, since each aerosol deposition experiment, in vivo or in vitro, was conducted with a specific human airway geometry. Montgomery et al (1979) plotted results of nasal airways cross-sectional areas along the length of the airway from four well preserved adult human cadaver specimens. The differcnce in nasal cross-sectional areas between these specimens varies from 10% to 60%.…”

Section: A This Studymentioning

confidence: 99%