American journal of orthodontics and dentofacial orthopedics : official publication of the American Association of Orthodontists, its constituent societies, and the American Board of Orthodontics · 2011
Airway volume for different dentofacial skeletal patterns.
Сравнительное исследованиеСтатьяПоддержка исследования: вне правительства СШАНазвание 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.
El Hakan, Palomo Juan Martin
Аннотация
INTRODUCTION: Our objective was to evaluate the nasal passage (NP) and oropharyngeal (OP) volumes of patients with different dentofacial skeletal patterns.
METHODS: The study sample consisted of 140 patients (70 boys, 70 girls), divided into 3 groups as Class I (1 ≤ ANB ≤ 3), Class II (ANB > 3), and Class III (ANB < 1), and then further divided into 4 groups as SNA angle ≥ 80°, SNA angle <80°, SNB angle ≥78°, and SNB angle < 78° to evaluate how the positional changes in the maxilla and the mandible affect the OP and NP variables. Differences between groups were determined by using the Kruskal-Wallis test. Correlations between the variables were tested with the Spearman correlation coefficient. The linear multiple regression test was applied to create a model for the airway volumes separately.
RESULTS: The OP volume of the Class II subjects (n = 50) was significantly lower when compared with that of the Class I (n = 46) and Class III subjects (n = 44). The only statistically significant difference for NP volume was observed between the Class I and Class II groups. The mean OP airway volume of subjects with retruded mandibular positions was statistically significantly smaller when compared with the subjects with higher SNB angles. The area of the most constricted region at the base of the tongue (minAx) had a high potential in explaining the OP volume, whereas the NP volume models were not as successful as the OP counterpart. However, minAx was also entered into the NP volume equations as an explanatory variable.
CONCLUSIONS: The OP airway volumes of Class II patients were smaller when compared with Class I and Class III patients. It was observed that mandibular position with respect to cranial base had an effect on the OP airway volume. The only significant difference for the NP volume was between the Class I and Class II groups, with a smaller volume observed for the Class II group.
METHODS: The study sample consisted of 140 patients (70 boys, 70 girls), divided into 3 groups as Class I (1 ≤ ANB ≤ 3), Class II (ANB > 3), and Class III (ANB < 1), and then further divided into 4 groups as SNA angle ≥ 80°, SNA angle <80°, SNB angle ≥78°, and SNB angle < 78° to evaluate how the positional changes in the maxilla and the mandible affect the OP and NP variables. Differences between groups were determined by using the Kruskal-Wallis test. Correlations between the variables were tested with the Spearman correlation coefficient. The linear multiple regression test was applied to create a model for the airway volumes separately.
RESULTS: The OP volume of the Class II subjects (n = 50) was significantly lower when compared with that of the Class I (n = 46) and Class III subjects (n = 44). The only statistically significant difference for NP volume was observed between the Class I and Class II groups. The mean OP airway volume of subjects with retruded mandibular positions was statistically significantly smaller when compared with the subjects with higher SNB angles. The area of the most constricted region at the base of the tongue (minAx) had a high potential in explaining the OP volume, whereas the NP volume models were not as successful as the OP counterpart. However, minAx was also entered into the NP volume equations as an explanatory variable.
CONCLUSIONS: The OP airway volumes of Class II patients were smaller when compared with Class I and Class III patients. It was observed that mandibular position with respect to cranial base had an effect on the OP airway volume. The only significant difference for the NP volume was between the Class I and Class II groups, with a smaller volume observed for the Class II group.