Article Sidebar

PDF
Date Published: 11/12/2023
Abstract Views: 157
Views PDF: 85
DOI: https://doi.org/10.51298/vmj.v532i2.7611
Issue
Vol. 532 No. 2 (2023)
Section
Các bài báo
How to Cite
Phan, T. T., Nguyễn, T. T. P., Quách, T. T. L., Nguyễn, T. H., & Nguyễn, T. T. H. (2023). MEASUREMENT OF UPPER AIRWAY IN LATER CEPHALOGRAMS OF ADULTS WITH DIFFERENT SKELETAL CLASSIFICATIONS OF JAWS. Vietnam Medical Journal, 532(2). https://doi.org/10.51298/vmj.v532i2.7611

MEASUREMENT OF UPPER AIRWAY IN LATER CEPHALOGRAMS OF ADULTS WITH DIFFERENT SKELETAL CLASSIFICATIONS OF JAWS

Thị Tình Phan1,, Thị Thu Phương Nguyễn2, Thị Thúy Lan Quách2, Trọng Hiếu Nguyễn2, Thị Thương Hoài Nguyễn2
1 HMU
2 Institute of Dental and Maxillofacial Training, Hanoi Medical University

Main Article Content

Abstract

SKELETAL CLASSIFICATIONS OF JAWS

Subjects and methods: cross-sectional study of


90 subjects with different skeletal classifications (30 samples in class I, 30 samples in class II, 30 samples in class III) examined and treated at School of Odonto- Stomatology – Hanoi Medical University. Results: width of nasopharyngeal class I: 24.9 ±2.97, class II: 25.55 2.9, class III: 24.52 2.88; width of oropharyngeal class I: 10.12 ± 3.58, class II: 8.92 ± 2.97, class III: 10.17 ± 3.71 mm; width of hypopharyngeal class I: 16.98 ± 4.33, class II 16.45 ± 3.64, class III: 18.48 ± 4.3 mm; soft palate thickness class I: 8.5 ± 1.5, class II 7.53 ± 1.75, class III: 8.45


± 1.83 mm; soft palate length class I: 32.78 ± 4.15, class II: 33.26 ± 3.45, class III: 30.71 ± 4.77 mm;


tongue length class I: 68.08 ± 6.59, class II: 66.18 ± 6.64, class III: 66.22 ± 5.21 mm; tongue height class I: 34.7 ± 3.26, class II: 32.83 ± 4.12, class III: 35.65


± 3.88 mm. Conclusion: the nasopharyngeal airway width in class II subjects is more than class I, and in class I subjects is more than class III. The oropharyngeal, hypopharyngeal airway width in class III subjects are more than class I and class I subjects are more than class II, but not significantly. Soft palate length in class II subjects is more than class I and in class I subjects is more than class III. Tongue length, soft palate thickness in class I subjects are more than class III and in class III subjects are more than class II.

Article Details

Keywords

pharyngeal, skeletal, cephalometric

References

1. Basheer B, Hegde KS, Bhat SS, Umar D, Baroudi K. Influence of mouth breathing on the dentofacial growth of children: a cephalometric study. J Int Oral Health JIOH. 2014;6(6):50-55.
2. A cephalometric evaluation of the pharyngeal airway space in patients with mandibular retrognathia and prognathia, and normal subjects - PubMed. Accessed April 16, 2022. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/ 18296029/
3. Kirjavainen M, Kirjavainen T. Upper airway dimensions in Class II malocclusion. Effects of headgear treatment. Angle Orthod. 2007;77(6):1046-1053. doi:10.2319/081406-332
4. Wenzel A, Williams S, Ritzau M. Relationships of changes in craniofacial morphology, head posture, and nasopharyngeal airway size following mandibular osteotomy. Am J Orthod Dentofac Orthop Off Publ Am Assoc Orthod Its Const Soc Am Board Orthod. 1989;96(2):138-143. doi:10.1016/0889-5406(89)90254-0
5. Gholinia F, Habibi L, Amrollahi Boyouki M. Cephalometric Evaluation of the Upper Airway in Different Skeletal Classifications of Jaws. J Craniofac Surg. 2019; 30(5): e469-e474. doi: 10.1097/ SCS.0000000000005637
6. Cakarne D, Urtane I, Skagers A. Pharyngeal airway sagittal dimension in patients with Class III skeletal dentofacial deformity before and after bimaxillary surgery. 2003;5.
7. Suvagiya H, Mehta F, Patel R, Kumar A. evaluation of uvulo-glosso-pharyngeal dimensions in different skeletal patterns-a cephalometric study.; 2020.