Cone-beam evaluation of pharyngeal airway space in adult skeletal Class II patients with different condylar positions.

Jintao Xu, Ruonan Sun, Linna Wang, Xiaoying Hu
Author Information

Abstract

OBJECTIVES: To test the null hypothesis that there is no significant difference in pharyngeal airway space among adult skeletal Class II patients with different condylar positions using cone-beam computed tomography (CBCT).
MATERIALS AND METHODS: The CBCT records of 60 patients with skeletal Class II malocclusion (ANB angle ≥ 4°, Wits ≥ 0) were selected from the CBCT database. According to the condyle position, the patients were divided in three groups: anterior group (CD ≤ -12%), centric group (-12% ≤ CD ≤ +12%), and posterior group (CD ≥ +12%). Three-dimensional (3D) pharyngeal airway models were reconstructed using InvivoDental software 5.1.3. The volume and area of the pharyngeal airway space were measured in the 3D airway model.
RESULTS: The volume and area of the pharyngeal airway space in the centric group were significantly smaller than those in the posterior group ( P < .01). The volume and area of the pharyngeal airway space were smallest in the anterior group and significantly increased in the centric and posterior groups ( P < .001).
CONCLUSIONS: The null hypothesis was rejected. Significant differences were noted in pharyngeal airway space among adult skeletal Class II patients with different condylar positions.

Keywords

References

  1. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop. 2009 Jul;136(1):17.e1-9; discussion 17-8 [PMID: 19577142]
  2. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop. 2014 Sep;146(3):385-93 [PMID: 25172261]
  3. PLoS One. 2014 Apr 22;9(4):e95544 [PMID: 24755893]
  4. Oral Surg Oral Med Oral Pathol Oral Radiol Endod. 2008 Apr;105(4):495-502 [PMID: 18329585]
  5. J Prosthet Dent. 1985 May;53(5):706-13 [PMID: 3858537]
  6. PLoS One. 2014 Apr 04;9(4):e94378 [PMID: 24705466]
  7. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop. 2009 Apr;135(4):495-501 [PMID: 19361736]
  8. Atlas Oral Maxillofac Surg Clin North Am. 2012 Mar;20(1):1-17 [PMID: 22365427]
  9. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop. 2013 Jan;143(1):20-30.e3 [PMID: 23273357]
  10. Dentomaxillofac Radiol. 2013;42(3):84227642 [PMID: 22933537]
  11. Prog Orthod. 2013 Oct 18;14:36 [PMID: 24325842]
  12. J Oral Maxillofac Surg. 2015 Jun;73(6):1133-42 [PMID: 25795186]
  13. J Am Dent Assoc. 2013 Mar;144(3):269-77 [PMID: 23449902]
  14. Angle Orthod. 2008 May;78(3):387-95 [PMID: 18416632]
  15. J Orofac Orthop. 2016 Sep;77(5):350-6 [PMID: 27357584]
  16. Med Sci Monit. 2013 Oct 29;19:903-7 [PMID: 24165809]
  17. J Oral Maxillofac Surg. 2018 Jun;76(6):1165-1174 [PMID: 29373821]
  18. Int J Pediatr Otorhinolaryngol. 2014 Jul;78(7):1167-72 [PMID: 24833165]
  19. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop. 1995 Jun;107(6):589-95 [PMID: 7771363]
  20. N Engl J Med. 1993 Apr 29;328(17):1230-5 [PMID: 8464434]
  21. Orthod Craniofac Res. 2014 Feb;17(1):38-48 [PMID: 24033888]
  22. J Craniomaxillofac Surg. 2015 Mar;43(2):248-53 [PMID: 25547214]
  23. Korean J Orthod. 2015 Mar;45(2):66-73 [PMID: 25798412]
  24. Angle Orthod. 2015 Nov;85(6):962-8 [PMID: 25630055]
  25. Angle Orthod. 2017 Nov;87(6):847-854 [PMID: 28862492]
  26. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop. 2010 Mar;137(3):306.e1-11; discussion 306-7 [PMID: 20197163]
  27. Angle Orthod. 2008 Sep;78(5):880-8 [PMID: 18298200]
  28. Oral Surg Oral Med Oral Pathol Oral Radiol Endod. 2007 Apr;103(4):534-42 [PMID: 17395068]
  29. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop. 2009 Apr;135(4):468-79 [PMID: 19361733]
  30. Oral Surg Oral Med Oral Pathol Oral Radiol. 2015 Dec;120(6):679-83 [PMID: 26437898]
  31. J Oral Maxillofac Surg. 2010 Feb;68(2):354-62 [PMID: 20116708]

MeSH Term

Adult
Cephalometry
Cone-Beam Computed Tomography
Humans
Imaging, Three-Dimensional
Malocclusion, Angle Class III
Mandible
Maxilla
Pharynx

Word Cloud

Created with Highcharts 10.0.0airwaypharyngealspacegrouppatientsskeletalClassIICBCTadultdifferentcondylarpositionsCDcentricposteriorvolumeareanullhypothesisamongusingpositionanterior-12%+12%3DsignificantlyP<OBJECTIVES:testsignificantdifferencecone-beamcomputedtomographyMATERIALSANDMETHODS:records60malocclusionANBangleWits0selecteddatabaseAccordingcondyledividedthreegroups:Three-dimensionalmodelsreconstructedInvivoDentalsoftware513measuredmodelRESULTS:smaller01smallestincreasedgroups001CONCLUSIONS:rejectedSignificantdifferencesnotedCone-beamevaluationCondylarPharyngeal

Similar Articles

Cited By