Effect of airway and tongue in facial morphology of prepubertal Class I, II children

Abstract

Fig 1.Landmarks and reference lines used in this study. Ar (Articulare), intersection between posterior cranial base surface and posterior border of condylar head and neck; Pt (Pterygoid point), the posterior point of the pterygopalatine fossa; ANS (anterior nasal spine), Anterior point of the maxilla; PNS (posterior nasal spine), Posterior point of the palatine bone; Me (Menton), the inferior point of the symphysis; Pm (Protuberance menti), the most superior point where the heavy cortical bone of the symphysis ends; Xi, midpoint of the ramus (Ricketts analysis); Rp, intersection between the posterior border of the ramus and the palatal plane; H1, intersection between posterior border of tongue and hyoid bone; H2, the most anterior point of the hyoid bone; T, the most anterior point of the outline of tongue; Palatal plane, al i n ep a s s i n gt h r o u g hA N Sa n dP N S .알려져 왔다. 7 또한 부정교합자의 혀는 정상인과 다 른자 세 나위 치 에 서 의적 응 을보 이 며특 히연 하시 혀의 전방 위치는 개방교합의 발생 원인이 되는 것 으로 알려져 있다. Palate-tongue space, space between tongue and palate from the line perpendicular to the palatal plane at the incisive foramen to the line perpendicular to the palatal plane at the PNS; 3. Nasopharyngeal airway space, area formed by Ar-Pt-PNS-Rp. Fig 3.Anterior-posterior measurements used in this study. 4, At oNp e r p e n d ,d i s t a n c eb e t w e e nAp o i n ta n dn a s i o n perpendicular; 5, Facial convexity, angle formed by nasion, A point and pogonion; 6, Pog to N perpend, distance between pogonion and nasion perpendicular.입력하고 측정기구를 이용하여 면적 및 각도를 측정 하였다 각 측정치는 프로그램 상에서 계측된 수치 . . Method ErrorDahlberg formula : ME = ∑d 2 2n 면적 계측의 오류 범위는 11.33 mm 2 혀와 구개 (. (Table 3). Objective: This study examined the craniofacial morphology of young patients in their prepubertal stage showing class I, II malocclusion, by analyzing lateral cephalograms, and analyzed its relationship with tongue position, tongue space, and airway space in order to ascertain the effects of nasopharyngeal airway and tongue morphology on the form of the malocclusion. Methods: Seventy-six patients aging from 9 to 11 were divided into two groups depending on the ANB difference on the lateral cephalogram: Experimental group (Cl II malocclusion group) showing 0 ANB difference < 4.0; Control group (Cl ≤ Im a l o c c l u s i o ng r o u p )s h o w i n g0A N Bd i f f e r e n c e<4 . 0 .T h et o n g u es p a c e ,s p a c eb e t w e e np a l a t e ≤ and tongue, nasopharyngeal airway space and craniofacial morphology were compared between the two groups. Results: Tongue space, palate-tongue space, nasopharyngeal airway space showed no significant differences between class I and class II malocclusion groups. Hyperdivergent faces were associated with smaller nasopharyngeal airway space. Longer anterior facial height and posterior facial height were associated with larger tongue space, and greater anterior facial height were associated with lower tongue position. Smaller nasopharyngeal airway space showed smaller tongue space. Conclusions: Tongue space and nasopharyngeal airway...

Comparison of reliability of lateral cephalogram and computed tomography for assessment of airway space

“…Our present study found that with an increase in PFH, the tongue area increases, which is in accordance with Hwang et al [11] Thus, our study concluded that facial height has an influence on tongue area [ Table 3].…”

Evaluation of pharyngeal airway space amongst different skeletal patterns

“…Abu Allhaija and Al-Khateeb 20 concluded that the anteroposterior skeletal pattern showed weak, but significant correlation with inferior PAS. Hwang et al 27 reported that a constricted nasopharyngeal airway is associated with detruded mandible and maxilla. These two previous studies were based on lateral cephalograms.…”

Analysis of pharyngeal airway space and tongue position in individuals with different body types and facial patterns: A cephalometric study

“…[24] The gonial angle has no significant role in the dimensions of the pharyngeal airway space and position of the tongue. The recent study by Hwang et al [25] showed that airway space measurements in low and neutral angle Class II subjects did not differ from those of the skeletal Class I control group, while in the high-angle groups upper airway space was significantly smaller. Ucar and Uysal [11] also found that vertical growth patterns, but not malocclusion type, influenced upper airway dimensions.…”