Assessment of Oropharyngeal Widths in Individuals with Different Facial Skeletal Patterns
Background and objectives: The relationship between airway patency and craniofacial development is highly debated and controversial subject. Hence this was conducted with the aims and objectives of comparing and correlating the upper & lower Oropharyngeal widths in individuals with horizontal growth pattern with that of individuals having vertical growth pattern.
Methodology: 60 subjects (30 males & 30 females) in the age group of 16 to 20 years were selected as per inclusion criteria. They were divided into two groups (Group I and Group II) according to their skeletal pattern in vertical plane based on Jarabak' sratio and Y axis. . Pharyngeal width measurement was done based on McNamara analysis The data obtained was statistically evaluated using Mann-Whitney U test (Z test).
Results: Significant correlation was found between facial skeletal patterns and upper and lower Oropharyngeal widths. The subjects with vertical skeletal pattern were found to have significantly narrower upper airways and broader lower airways than those with horizontal skeletal pattern.
Interpretation and conclusion: The study supports the existence of a relationship between facial skeletal patterns and upper and lower oropharyngeal widths.
24 April 2020 (online)
Thieme Medical and Scientific Publishers Private Ltd.
A-12, Second Floor, Sector -2, NOIDA -201301, India
- 1 Ismail Ceylan, Husamettin Oktay. A study on the pharyngeal size in different skeletal patterns. Am J OrthodDentofacOrthop 1995(108):69-75.
- 2 Elham Saleh Abu Allhaija, Susan Nandeem Al-Khateeb. Uvulo-Glossopharyngeal dimensions in different antero-posterior skeletal patterns. Angle Orthod 2005:75:1-13.
- 3 Marcos Roberto de Freitas, Nandyr Maria Penteado, Virmond Alcazar. Upper and lower pharyngeal airways in subject with Class I and Class II malocclusions and different growth patterns. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop 2006; 130:742-45.
- 4 McNamara JA. A method of cephalometric evaluation. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop 1984; 86(6):449-469.
- 5 Luc P.m.Tourne. Growth of the pharynx and its physiologic implications. Am J Orthod DentofacialOrthop 1991(129-139):1-24.
- 6 Enlow DH. Handbook of facial growth. Philadelphia:WB Saunders 1975;56-57.
- 7 Sassouni V, A classification of facial types. AM J Orthod 1969;55:109
- 8 Ellis E, McNamara JA. Components of adult class III open bite malocclusion. AM J Orthod 1984;86:277
- 9 Issacson JR , Speidel MT , Worms WF. Extreme variations in vertical growth and associated variations in skeletal and dental relations. Angle Orthod 1971;41:219-29.
- 10 Kerr WJ. The nasopharynx, face height and overbite. Angle Orthod,1985;55:31-6.
- 11 Downs WB. Analysis of the dentofacial profile. Angle Orthod 1956; 26:192-212.
- 12 Downs WB. The role of cephalometry in orthodontic case analysis and diagnosis. Am J OrthodDentofacialOrthop1952;38:162-82.
- 13 Mayury, Maria Beatriz de Araujo. Jarabak's Cephalometric Analysis of Brazilian Black Patients. Braz Dent J 2007: 18(3).
- 14 Peter S. Vig, David M. Sarver, David J. Hall, Donald W. Warren. Quantitative evaluation of nasal airflow in relation to facial morphology. Am J Orthod DentofacialOrthop 1981; 79(3):263-72