Page 101 - JCTR-10-1
P. 101

Mardany et al. | Journal of Clinical and Translational Research 2024; 10(1): 93-98   97
        using CBCT, and reported conflicting results. Elagib et al. [16]   Total  pharyngeal  airway, velopharyngeal,  and  oropharyngeal
        found that skeletal patterns affect airway volume. However, the   volumes were lower in Class II patients compared to Class I and
        authors  reported  that  age  and  sex  also  significantly  influence   III patients with normal growth patterns. There was a significant
        airway variables. The findings in the current study differ from the   difference in pharyngeal space between males and females with
        data by Elagib et al., who reported a significant difference between   Class II malocclusion. Pharyngeal space in females with Class II
        Class I, II, and III malocclusions with respect to pharyngeal space.   malocclusion  was larger than that  in their male  counterparts.
        In the current study, the age of patients was from 17 to 39 years,   There was no difference in airway space between female and male
        while the patients’ age in the study by Elagib et al. was from 12   patients  with  Class  1  malocclusion.  Pharyngeal  space  between
        to 19 years. Furthermore, the race of patients in both studies was   females and males showed no difference in Class III malocclusion.
        different,  and  both  sex  and  age  significantly  affect  pharyngeal   Acknowledgments
        space.
          Tseng et al. measured the differences in airway volume and   None.
        the smallest cross-sectional area of the pharynx among 90 patients
        with three skeletal patterns using CBCT. The authors observed   Funding
        that the mean overall volume of the respiratory pharyngeal airway,   Not applicable.
        velopharynx, glossopharynx, oropharynx, and hypopharynx and
        the smallest  cross-sectional area of the respiratory airway in   Conflict of interest
        Class  III  patients  and  Class  I  patients  were  significantly  larger
        than  in  Class  II patients.  The  study  further  revealed  that  the   The authors declare no conflicts of interest.
        airway volume of the patients in skeletal Class II was only two-  Ethics approval and consent to participate
        thirds of the airway volume of those in skeletal Class III, which is
        comparable to our study.                                   Ethical approval was obtained from the Islamic Azad University
          Opdebeeck  et  al.  [17]  reported  that  patients  with  a  vertical   Local Research Ethics Committees (protocol identifier IR.IAU.
        growth pattern  have a smaller  airway space than those with a   DENTAL, REC;1400.041). Informed consent was obtained from
        horizontal growth patterns. The difference between the findings   the patients.
        of Opdebeeck et al. and current study is due to the growth pattern,   Consent for publication
        which was normal in our study. It appears that the growth pattern
        affects the dimensions of the pharyngeal space.            Informed consent for releasing the patients data and/or images
          Di Carlo et al. [18] evaluated the airway space of 90 young   in this paper was obtained.
        adult patients with Class I, II, and III malocclusions. They found
        no  statistical  difference  between  airway  dimension  and  sagittal   Availability of data
        malocclusion. In contrast to our study, the CBCTs were acquired   Data are available  from the corresponding author upon
        in supine position, where the patients were lying in a bed with   reasonable request.
        their head fitted in a molded pillow. Moreover, Di Carlo et al.
        selected  the CBCT images according  to the following criteria:   References
        Class I (0.5° < ANB < 4.5°), Class II (ANB > 4.5°), and Class III   [1]   Celikoglu M, Bayram M, Sekerci AE, Buyuk SK, Toy E.
        (ANB < 0.5°). Future studies should attempt to evaluate the area   Comparison of Pharyngeal Airway Volume among Different
        of nasal vestibules, which is a restricting factor in nasal airflow.   Vertical  Skeletal Patterns:  A  Cone-beam Computed
        It  is also recommended  that  the  position  of the  hyoid  bone  be   Tomography Study. Angle Orthod 2014;84:782-7.
        assessed about its muscular attachment.                       doi: 10.2319/101013-748.1
          One of the limitations of this study was that CBCT scans of
        patients  with horizontal  or vertical  growth patterns  were not   [2]   Moshiri M, Scarfe WC, Hilgers ML, Scheetz JP, Silveira AM,
        included due to the insufficient number of such cases. It is expected   Farman  AG.  Accuracy  of Linear Measurements  from
        that in future studies, airway dimensions will be evaluated  in   Imaging Plate and Lateral Cephalometric Images Derived
        patients with Class I, II, and III malocclusions, including vertical,   from Cone-beam Computed  Tomography.  Am J  Orthod
        normal,  and  horizontal  growth patterns,  and  the  volume  of the   Dentofacial Orthop 2007;132:550-60.
        nasopharynx will also be measured.                            doi: 10.1016/j.ajodo.2006.09.046
                                                                [3]   Cattaneo PM, Melsen B. The Use of Cone-beam Computed
        5. Conclusions                                                Tomography in  an Orthodontic  Department  in  between
          The  mean  volume  of the  total  pharyngeal  airway,       Research and Daily Clinic. World J Orthod 2008;9:269-82.
        velopharyngeal,  glossopharyngeal,  and  oropharyngeal  and  the   [4]   Kumar  V, Ludlow J, Soares Cevidanes LH, Mol  A.
        most  constricted  areas  were  significantly  greater  in  patients   In Vivo Comparison of Conventional and Cone Beam CT
        with  skeletal  Class  III malocclusion  compared  to  patients  with   Synthesized Cephalograms. Angle Orthod 2008;78:873-9.
        skeletal Class  II malocclusion  with normal growth pattern.      doi: 10.2319/082907-399.1
                                                DOI: https://doi.org/10.36922/jctr.23.00110
   96   97   98   99   100   101   102   103   104