Evaluation of Tongue Volume and Airway Volume in Skeletal Class I and Class II Patients using Cone Beam Computed Tomography- A Cross Sectional Study

Authors

  • Jim Thomas Abraham Faculty of Dental Sciences, M S Ramaiah University of Applied Sciences
  • Roshan M Sagarkar Department of Orthodontics, Faculty of Dental Sciences, M S Ramaiah University of Applied Sciences
  • Sharanya Sabrish Department of Orthodontics, Faculty of Dental Sciences, M S Ramaiah University of Applied Sciences
  • Prashantha Govinakovi Shivamurthy Head of Department of Orthodontics, Faculty of Dental Sciences, M S Ramaiah University of Applied Sciences
  • Silju Mathew Department of Orthodontics, Faculty of Dental Sciences, M S Ramaiah University of Applied Sciences
  • Nagaraju Rakesh Department of Oral Medicine and Radiology, Faculty of Dental Sciences, M S Ramaiah University of Applied Sciences

DOI:

https://doi.org/10.5195/d3000.2023.245

Keywords:

airway volume, Class I skeletal malocclusion, Class II skeletal malocclusion, Dolphin software, tongue volume

Abstract

BACKGROUND: The volumetric relationship between the tongue and the oral cavity is an important factor in tooth alignment and occlusion. The aim of this study was to evaluate the difference in tongue and airway volume in skeletal Class I and Class II malocclusion.

MATERIALS AND METHODS: The CBCT data which comprised of 30 skeletal Class I and 30 skeletal Class II was stored in DICOM format. Tongue volume and airway volume was analyzed with the help of 3D dolphin software. Values obtained were subjected to statistical analysis with help of SPSS.

RESULTS: Skeletal Class I pattern had more tongue volume with a mean of 45.32 mm3 than skeletal Class II pattern with mean value of 40.27mm3 with P value of <0.001. Skeletal Class I pattern has more airway volume with a mean of 15058.6 mm3 than patients with Skeletal Class II pattern with mean value of 12458.8mm3 with a P value of 0.003. A P value of 0.001 indicated that there is a strong correlation between the tongue volume and airway volume in both skeletal Class I and skeletal Class II subjects.

CONCLUSION: The volume of tongue and airway was greater in skeletal Class I malocclusion compared to skeletal Class II malocclusion. There exists a positive correlation between the tongue volume and airway volume in both the skeletal patterns.

References

Proffit WR. Equilibrium theory revisited: factors influencing position of the teeth. Angle Orthodontist; 48. Epub ahead of print 1978. DOI: 10.1043/0003-3219(1978)048<0175:ETRFIP>2.0.CO;2.

Verma S, Agrawal D, Prabhat K, et al. A cephalometric evaluation of tongue from the rest position to centric occlusion in the subjects with class II division 1 malocclusion and class I normal occlusion. Journal of Orthodontic Science; 1. Epub ahead of print 2012. DOI: 10.4103/2278-0203.99758.

Aby DM, Sagarkar RM, Mathew S, et al. Comparison of airway morphology and volume in skeletal class i and class ii patients using cone-beam computed tomography: A cross-sectional study. World Journal of Dentistry; 11. Epub ahead of print 2020. DOI: 10.5005/jp-journals-10015-1754.

Paolantonio EG, Ludovici N, Saccomanno S, et al. Association between oral habits, mouth breathing and malocclusion in Italian preschoolers. European Journal of Paediatric Dentistry; 20. Epub ahead of print 2019. DOI: 10.23804/ejpd.2019.20.03.07.

Liu ZJ, Shcherbatyy V, Gu G, et al. Effects of tongue volume reduction on craniofacial growth: A longitudinal study on orofacial skeletons and dental arches. Archives of Oral Biology; 53. Epub ahead of print 2008. DOI: 10.1016/j.archoralbio.2008.05.010.

Indriksone I, Jakobsone G. The influence of craniofacial morphology on the upper airway dimensions. Angle Orthodontist; 85. Epub ahead of print 2015. DOI: 10.2319/061014-418.1.

Primozic J, Farčnik F, Perinetti G, et al. The association of tongue posture with the dentoalveolar maxillary and mandibular morphology in Class III malocclusion: A controlled study. European Journal of Orthodontics; 35. Epub ahead of print 2013. DOI: 10.1093/ejo/cjs015.

Alves M, Baratieri C, Nojima LI, et al. Three-dimensional assessment of pharyngeal airway in nasal- and mouth-breathing children. International Journal of Pediatric Otorhinolaryngology; 75. Epub ahead of print 2011. DOI: 10.1016/j.ijporl.2011.06.019.

Chandra PK, Godfrey K. Assessment and predictability of ANB angle. Australian orthodontic journal; 11.

Jeans WD, Fernando DCJ, Maw AR, et al. A longitudinal study of the growth of the nasopharynx and its contents in normal children. British Journal of Radiology; 54. Epub ahead of print 1981. DOI: 10.1259/0007-1285-54-638-117.

Handelman CS, Osborne G. Growth of the nasopharynx and adenoid development from one to eighteen years. Angle Orthodontist; 46. Epub ahead of print 1976. DOI: 10.1043/0003-3219(1976)0462.0.CO;2.

Chiang CC, Jeffres MN, Miller A, et al. Three-dimensional airway evaluation in 387 subjects from one university orthodontic clinic using cone beam computed tomography. Angle Orthodontist; 82. Epub ahead of print 2012. DOI: 10.2319/122811-801.1.

Bandy HE, Hunter WS. Tongue volume and the mandibular dentition. American Journal of Orthodontics; 56. Epub ahead of print 1969. DOI: 10.1016/0002-9416(69)90230-9.

Vig PS, Cohen AM. The size of the human tongue shadow in different mandibular postures. BRITJORTHODONT; 1. Epub ahead of print 1974. DOI: 10.1179/bjo.1.2.41.

Lowe AA, Takada K, Yamagata Y, et al. Dentoskeletal and tongue soft-tissue correlates: A cephalometric analysis of rest position. American Journal of Orthodontics; 88. Epub ahead of print 1985. DOI: 10.1016/0002-9416(85)90133-2.

Liégeois F, Albert A, Limme M. Comparison between tongue volume from magnetic resonance images and tongue area from profile cephalograms. European Journal of Orthodontics; 32. Epub ahead of print 2010. DOI: 10.1093/ejo/cjp105.

Tourné LPM. Growth of the pharynx and its physiologic implications. American Journal of Orthodontics and Dentofacial Orthopedics; 99. Epub ahead of print 1991. DOI: 10.1016/0889-5406(91)70115-D.

Ceylan I, Oktay H. A study on the pharyngeal size in different skeletal patterns. American Journal of Orthodontics and Dentofacial Orthopedics; 108. Epub ahead of print 1995. DOI: 10.1016/S0889-5406(95)70068-4.

Aboudara C, Nielsen I, Huang JC, et al. Comparison of airway space with conventional lateral headfilms and 3-dimensional reconstruction from cone-beam computed tomography. American Journal of Orthodontics and Dentofacial Orthopedics; 135. Epub ahead of print 2009. DOI: 10.1016/j.ajodo.2007.04.043.

El H, Palomo JM. Three-dimensional evaluation of upper airway following rapid maxillary expansion A CBCT study. Angle Orthodontist; 84. Epub ahead of print 2014. DOI: 10.2319/012313-71.1.

Paul D, Varma S, Ajith V. Airway in Class i and Class II skeletal pattern: A computed tomography study. Contemporary Clinical Dentistry; 6. Epub ahead of print 2015. DOI: 10.4103/0976-237X.161856.

Yoo E, Murakami S, Takada K, et al. Tongue volume in human female adults with mandibular prognathism. Journal of Dental Research; 75. Epub ahead of print 1996. DOI: 10.1177/00220345960750120701.

Lee RWW, Sutherland K, Chan ASL, et al. Relationship between surface facial dimensions and upper airway structures in obstructive sleep apnea. Sleep; 33. Epub ahead of print 2010. DOI: 10.1093/sleep/33.9.1249.

Kim YJ, Hong JS, Hwang YI, et al. Three-dimensional analysis of pharyngeal airway in preadolescent children with different anteroposterior skeletal patterns. American Journal of Orthodontics and Dentofacial Orthopedics; 137. Epub ahead of print 2010. DOI: 10.1016/j.ajodo.2009.10.025.

Chauhan A, Autar R, Pradhan K, et al. Comparison of pharyngeal airway dimension, tongue and hyoid bone position based on ANB angle. National Journal of Maxillofacial Surgery; 6. Epub ahead of print 2015. DOI: 10.4103/0975-5950.168237.

Downloads

Published

2023-10-13

Issue

Vol. 11 No. 1 (2023)

Section

Development of Craniofacial Structures

License

Copyright (c) 2023 Jim Thomas Abraham, Roshan M Sagarkar, Sharanya Sabrish, Prashantha GS, Silju Mathew, Rakesh N

Creative Commons License

This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.

Authors who publish with this journal agree to the following terms:

  1. The Author retains copyright in the Work, where the term “Work” shall include all digital objects that may result in subsequent electronic publication or distribution.
  2. Upon acceptance of the Work, the author shall grant to the Publisher the right of first publication of the Work.
  3. The Author shall grant to the Publisher and its agents the nonexclusive perpetual right and license to publish, archive, and make accessible the Work in whole or in part in all forms of media now or hereafter known under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License or its equivalent, which, for the avoidance of doubt, allows others to copy, distribute, and transmit the Work under the following conditions:
    1. Attribution—other users must attribute the Work in the manner specified by the author as indicated on the journal Web site;
    with the understanding that the above condition can be waived with permission from the Author and that where the Work or any of its elements is in the public domain under applicable law, that status is in no way affected by the license.
  4. The Author is able to enter into separate, additional contractual arrangements for the nonexclusive distribution of the journal's published version of the Work (e.g., post it to an institutional repository or publish it in a book), as long as there is provided in the document an acknowledgement of its initial publication in this journal.
  5. Authors are permitted and encouraged to post online a prepublication manuscript (but not the Publisher’s final formatted PDF version of the Work) in institutional repositories or on their Websites prior to and during the submission process, as it can lead to productive exchanges, as well as earlier and greater citation of published work. Any such posting made before acceptance and publication of the Work shall be updated upon publication to include a reference to the Publisher-assigned DOI (Digital Object Identifier) and a link to the online abstract for the final published Work in the Journal.
  6. Upon Publisher’s request, the Author agrees to furnish promptly to Publisher, at the Author’s own expense, written evidence of the permissions, licenses, and consents for use of third-party material included within the Work, except as determined by Publisher to be covered by the principles of Fair Use.
  7. The Author represents and warrants that:
    1. the Work is the Author’s original work;
    2. the Author has not transferred, and will not transfer, exclusive rights in the Work to any third party;
    3. the Work is not pending review or under consideration by another publisher;
    4. the Work has not previously been published;
    5. the Work contains no misrepresentation or infringement of the Work or property of other authors or third parties; and
    6. the Work contains no libel, invasion of privacy, or other unlawful matter.
  8. The Author agrees to indemnify and hold Publisher harmless from Author’s breach of the representations and warranties contained in Paragraph 6 above, as well as any claim or proceeding relating to Publisher’s use and publication of any content contained in the Work, including third-party content.

Revised 7/16/2018. Revision Description: Removed outdated link.