International orthodontics · 2020
Upper airways evaluation in young adults with an anterior open bite: A CBCT retrospective controlled and cross-sectional study.
СтатьяНазвание и аннотация: Перевод пока не подготовлен
Обработка статьи · этапы, ошибки и управление
Загрузка состояния…
Ошибки и ограничения
История · было → стало
Состояние обновляется каждые 5 секунд, пока блок открыт. Процент показывается только там, где известен объём работы. Пауза останавливает продолжение этапа; текущий запрос к источнику может завершиться.
Vidal-Manyari Patricia Aurora, Arriola-Guillén Luis Ernesto, Jimenez-Valdivia Ludy Marileidy, Dias-Da Silveira Heraldo Luis, Boessio-Vizzotto Mariana
Аннотация
OBJECTIVE: To compare the dimensions of the upper airway in young adults with anterior open bite versus matched individuals with an adequate overbite (control group) using different measurement approaches (linear, area, and volume measures).
MATERIALS AND METHODS: The sample included 137 cone-beam computed tomographies (CBCTs) of young adults (74 men and 63 women) divided into two groups: 47 CBCTs of individuals (mean age 27.89) with open bite (overbite depth indicator (ODI) 56.84°±9.48° and Frankfort mandibular plane angle (FMA) 31.21°±6.44°) and 90 CBCTs of individuals (mean age 26.87) without an open bite (ODI 62.24°±9.47°, FMA 26.79°±5.81°). Two trained and calibrated orthodontists made all linear, area, and volume measurements on the CBCT records of the upper airways using Planmeca Romexis software. The Mann-Whitney U-test, chi-squared test, and multiple linear regression were applied. Significance was set at P<0.05.
RESULTS: There were no differences in linear or volume measurements between groups, but there was a greater area in the open bite group (greater mean difference between groups 928.3 mm2) than the control group. No variable influenced nasopharyngeal airway volume, but ANB angle affected oropharyngeal airway volume (β=-623.87) and total airway volume (β=-651.48).
CONCLUSIONS: Orthodontists should be aware that the airways diagnosis can vary depending on the measurement approach used, the volumetric method being the gold standard. The pharyngeal airway volume was similar in individuals with vs. without an open bite and is mainly influenced by ANB angle in both groups.
MATERIALS AND METHODS: The sample included 137 cone-beam computed tomographies (CBCTs) of young adults (74 men and 63 women) divided into two groups: 47 CBCTs of individuals (mean age 27.89) with open bite (overbite depth indicator (ODI) 56.84°±9.48° and Frankfort mandibular plane angle (FMA) 31.21°±6.44°) and 90 CBCTs of individuals (mean age 26.87) without an open bite (ODI 62.24°±9.47°, FMA 26.79°±5.81°). Two trained and calibrated orthodontists made all linear, area, and volume measurements on the CBCT records of the upper airways using Planmeca Romexis software. The Mann-Whitney U-test, chi-squared test, and multiple linear regression were applied. Significance was set at P<0.05.
RESULTS: There were no differences in linear or volume measurements between groups, but there was a greater area in the open bite group (greater mean difference between groups 928.3 mm2) than the control group. No variable influenced nasopharyngeal airway volume, but ANB angle affected oropharyngeal airway volume (β=-623.87) and total airway volume (β=-651.48).
CONCLUSIONS: Orthodontists should be aware that the airways diagnosis can vary depending on the measurement approach used, the volumetric method being the gold standard. The pharyngeal airway volume was similar in individuals with vs. without an open bite and is mainly influenced by ANB angle in both groups.