Evaluation of pharyngeal airway volume for different dentofacial skeletal patterns using cone-beam computed tomography

Abstract

Background/purpose Understanding of the three-dimensional airway space in three skeletal patterns is important in orthodontic treatment. This study investigated differences between the volume of pharyngeal airway sections and the smallest cross-sectional area in three skeletal patterns by using cone-beam computed tomography (CBCT). Materials and methods The 90 patients were collected to measure total pharyngeal airway volume (TP), velopharyngeal airway volume (VP), glossopharyngeal airway volume (GP), oropharyngeal airway volume (OP), hypopharyngeal airway volume (HP), and the smallest cross-sectional areas (SCA) of the upper respiratory tract as well as other relevant anatomical structures. The mean values differences between classes were analyzed using ANOVA. Pearson's test was used to compare classes in terms of the correlations between different factors. Results Patients in skeletal classes I and III exhibited significantly higher SCA values (322.6 mm 2 and 344.5 mm 2 respectively) than those in skeletal class II (240.8 mm 2 ). Subjects from skeletal classes I and III exhibited significantly higher values of VP, HP, and OP than those in skeletal class II. Skeletal classes I and III exhibited significantly higher TP values (31190.1 mm 3 and 30696.2 mm 3 , respectively) than those in skeletal class II (22386.0 mm 3 ). Non-significant relationships were discovered between pharyngeal airway and skeletal pattern. Conversely, significant relationships were found between TP and gender, ANB, SNB, hyoid and pogonion positions. Conclusion The skeletal class II has smaller airway volume than those in skeletal class I and III. The pharyngeal airway volumes could serve as a guide in differentiating the different skeletal classes in clinical settings.

CBCT Based Comparison of Pharyngeal Airway Area and Volume in patients with Angle’s Class I and Class II Malocclusion: A Retrospective Study

“…Table 1 shows Oropharyngeal airway volume compared among Class I and Class II malocclusion patients. No significant difference in the mean value of oropharyngeal airway volume for class 1(11.71±4.86 cm 3 ) and class 2 (10.70±6.25 cm 3 ) patients was found; (t=.688, p=0.495).…”

“…The posterior nasal and oral cavities are connected to the larynx and oesophagus via the pharynx, a tube-like tract in the upper airway 2 . The oropharyngeal airway one of the three regions of the pharyngeal airway is most likely to be impacted by the size and positioning of the tongue 3 .…”

Importance in the Occurrence Distribution of Minimum Oropharyngeal Cross‐Sectional Area in the Different Skeletal Patterns Using Cone‐Beam Computed Tomography

“…Claudino et al [ 8 ] and Tseng et al [ 9 ] indicated that airway volume was significantly correlated with ANB angle, whereas Kula et al [ 10 ] and Alves et al [ 11 ] found no significant correlation between these elements. The current study confirmed the findings of Claudino et al [ 8 ] and Tseng et al [ 9 ] that the ANB angle is a crucial factor affecting airway dimensions. Alves et al [ 11 ] reported significant differences between the airway volumes of male and female participants.…”

Posición hioidea, posición lingual y dimensión de la vía aérea faríngea según maloclusión esquelética

“…Los artículos analizados mencionan que la ubicación del hueso hioides difiere entre las diferentes maloclusiones. Encontraron una ubica-ción inferior y anterior en la Clase I (9,11) ; más inferior y posterior en la Clase II (2,8,9,11,(31)(32)(33)(34)(35)(36)(37)(38)41) ; más anterior (11,30) y superior (8,37,39) en la Clase III. También, en pacientes de Clase III, se observa una inclinación inversa del hueso hioides (eje largo del hueso hioides no paralelo al plano mandibular) (10) .…”