Differences in Pharyngeal Characteristics According to Angle Class of Malocclusion

Download Article

Diamantidou¹ / N. Topouzelis² / S. Sidiropoulou-Hadjigianni² / N. Gkantidis³

¹Private Practice, Thessaloniki, Greece
²Aristotle University of Thessaloniki, School of Dentistry, Department of Orthodontics, Thessaloniki, Greece
³University of Bern, Department of Orthodontics and Dentofacial Orthopedics, Bern, Switzerland

 

Summary

Objectives: To investigate potential differences in the pharynx, the soft palate, the pharyngeal tonsil, and the tongue between patients with different Angle Classes of malocclusion.

Study Design: Pre-treatment lateral cephalograms of 116 normal breathing individuals aged between 9 and 12 years were analyzed. 20 linear and 4 angular measurements, as well as 5 variables concerning the surface area of the pharynx and the soft palate were evaluated.

Results: The angle formed by the palatal plane and the base of the skull had lower values in Class II groups. The soft palate height was smaller in Class II, div. 1 group. The angle between the soft and hard palates was smaller in Class III, followed by Class I, Class II, div. 2, and Class II, div. 1, with increasing values. The distance of the tongue from the palatal plane was larger in Class I and Class III groups. The surface area of the oropharynx was larger in Class III than in Class II groups. The total surface area of the pharynx had higher values in Class III than in Class II/1.

Conclusion: Subjects with Class II malocclusion may be more prone to develop respiratory related disorders, such as obstructive sleep apnea, followed by Class I and Class III subjects.

Keywords: Malocclusion; Pharynx; Airway

References

1. Fujiki T, Takano-Yamamoto T, Noguchi H, Yamashiro T, Guan G, Tanimoto K. A cineradiographic study of deglutitive tongue movement and nasopharyngeal closure in patients with anterior open bite. Angle Orthod, 2000; 70:284-289.
2. Togeiro SM, Chaves CM Jr, Palombini L, Tufik S, Hora F, Nery LE. Evaluation of the upper airway in obstructive sleep apnoea. Indian J Med Res, 2010; 131:230-235.
3. Branstetter BF 4^th, Weissman JL. Normal anatomy of the neck with CT and MR imaging correlation. Radiol Clin North Am, 2000; 38:925-940.
4. Grauer D, Cevidanes LS, Styner MA, Ackerman JL, Proffit WR. Pharyngeal airway volume and shape from cone-beam computed tomography: relationship to facial morphology. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop, 2009; 136:805-814.
5. Farsaris N, Athanasiou AE, Goumas P. Obstructive sleep apnea syndrome: Contemporary concepts regarding etiology, clinical characteristics, diagnosis and treatment management. Hell Orthod Rev, 2003; 6:2-48.
6. Pirilä-Parkkinen K, Löppönen H, Nieminen P, Tolonen U, Pääkkö E, Pirttiniemi P. Validity of upper airway assessment in children: a clinical, cephalometric, and MRI study. Angle Orthod, 2011; 81:433-439. [Web of Science]
7. Lowe AA, Ono T, Ferguson KA, Pae EK, Ryan CF, Fleetham JA. Cephalometric comparisons of craniofacial and upper airway structure by skeletal subtype and gender in patients with obstructive sleep apnea. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop, 1996; 110:653-664.
8. Tangugsorn V, Skatvedt O, Krogstad O, Lyderg T. Obstructive sleep apnea: a cephalometric study. Part I. Cervico-craniofacial skeletal morphology. Eur J Orthod, 1995; 17:45-56.
9. Johal A, Conaghan C. Maxillary morphology in obstructive sleep apnea: a cephalometric and model study. Angle Orthod, 2004; 74:648-656. [PubMed]
10. Alves PV, Zhao L, O’Gara M, Patel PK, Bolognese AM. Three-dimensional cephalometric study of upper airway space in skeletal class II and III healthy patients. J Craniofac Surg, 2008; 19:1497-1507. [Crossref] [PubMed]
11. Kim YJ, Hong JS, Hwang YI, Park YH. Three-dimensional analysis of pharyngeal airway in preadolescent children with different anteroposterior skeletal patterns. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop, 2010; 137:306.e1-11. [Web of Science]
12. Smith RN, Brook AH, Elcock C. The quantification of dental plaque using an image analysis system: reliability and validation. J Clin Periodontol, 2001; 28:1158-1162.
13. Chatzigianni A, Halazonetis DJ. Geometric morphometric evaluation of cervical vertebrae shape and its relationship to skeletal maturation. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop, 2009; 136:481.e1-9.
14. Taylor M, Hans MG, Strohl KP, Nelson S, Broadbent BH. Soft tissue growth of the oropharynx. Angle Orthod, 1996; 66:393-400.
15. Linder-Aronson S, Leighton BC. A longitudinal study of the development of the posterior nasopharyngeal wall between 3 and 16 years of age. Eur J Orthod, 1983; 5:47-58.
16. Langlade M. Diagnostic orthodontique. Paris; Maloine S.A Editeur. 1981; pp145-205.
17. Gkantidis N, Halazonetis DJ. Morphological integration between the cranial base and the face in children and adults. J Anat, 2011; 218:426-438. [Web of Science]
18. Ceylan I, Oktay H. A study on the pharyngeal size in different skeletal patterns. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop, 1995; 108:69-75.
19. Sosa FA, Graber TM, Muller TP. Postpharyngeal lymphoid tissue in Angle Class I and Class II malocclusions. Am J Orthod, 1982; 81:299-309.
20. Zhong Z, Tang Z, Gao X, Zeng XL. A comparison study of upper airway among different skeletal craniofacial patterns in nonsnoring Chinese children.Angle Orthod, 2010; 80:267-274. [Web of Science]
21. Segal Y, Malhotra A, Pillar G. Upper airway length may be associated with the severity of obstructive sleep apnea syndrome. Sleep Breath, 2008; 12:311-316. [Crossref] [PubMed]
22. Trenouth MJ, Timms DJ. Relationship of the functional oropharynx to craniofacial morphology. Angle Orthod, 1999; 69:419-423.
23. Kikuchi Y. Three-dimensional relationship between pharyngeal airway and maxillo-facial morphology. Bull Tokyo Dent Coll, 2008; 49:65-75.

Citation Information: Balkan Journal of Dental Medicine. Volume 19, Issue 1, Pages 13–20, ISSN (Online) 2335-0245, DOI: https://doi.org/10.1515/bjdm-2015-0028, July 2015