Citation Information :
Sandhu N, Sandhu S S, Mehta K, Kashyap R. A Cephalometric Study to Evaluate the Variations in Pharyngeal Airway Spaces in Class I and Class II Malcocclusions. 2013; 1 (3):163-168.
Introduction: Ever since the time of Edward H. Angle, the effects of upper airway obstruction have been recognized in the field of craniofacial biology. Because of the close relationship between the pharynx and the dentofacial structures, a mutual interaction is expected to occur between the pharyngeal structures and the dentofacial pattern, and therefore justifies orthodontic interest. The purpose of this study was to compare the upper and lower pharyngeal widths and nasopharyngeal area in class I and class II malocclusion patients. Methods: The study sample consisted of 48 subjects of age group 18-26 years, divided into 2 groups: class I(n=24) and class II(n=24). Pharyngeal airways were assessed according to Mc Namara's analysis and Handelman and Osborne method of measuring pharyngeal widths and nasopharyngeal areas. Results: Independent t -test showed a statistically significant difference (p<0.01) in upper aerial width and nasopharyngeal airway area between two groups, showing that in class II cases upper aerial width is narrower and nasopharyngeal area is small when compared to class I cases. Conclusion: Conclusion of the study was that upper aerial width and nasopharyngeal airway area of class II cases were smaller than Class I cases. It was observed that mandibular position with respect to cranial base had an effect on pharyngeal airway.
Grewal N, Godhane A. Lateral cephalometry: A simple and economical clinical guide for assessment of nasopharyngeal airway space in mouth breathers. Contemp Clin Dent 2010; 1(2): 66–69.
Agarwal V, Reddy G, Jain S, Goyal V, Chugh T. Relation of pharynx with orofacial structures in Jaipur (India) population exhibiting normal occlusion with respect to sex: a cross sectional study. J Ind Orthod Soc 2011;45(4):207-211.
Chan J, Edman J, Koltai P. Obstructive Sleep Apnea in Children. Am Fam Physician 2004;69:1147-54.
Raffat A, Hamid W. Cephalometric assessment of patients with Adenoidal faces. J Pak Med Assoc 2009;59:747-52.
Mergen D, Jacobs R. The size of nasopharynx associated with normal occlusion and class II malocclusion. Angle orthod, 1970; 40(4):342-346.
Kirjavainen M, Kirjavainen T. Upper Airway Dimensions in Class II Malocclusion Effects of Headgear Treatment. Angle Orthod 2007;77(6):1046-1053.
Freitas M, Lima D, Freitas K, Janson G, Henriques J, Cephalometric evaluation of Class II malocclusion treatment with cervical headgear and mandibular fixed appliances. Eur J orthod 2008;30:477-482.
Trenouth M, Timms D. Relationship of the functional oropharynx to craniofacial morphology. Angle Orthod 1999;69(5):419-423.
Joseph A, Elbaum J, Cisneros G.A Cephalometric Comparative Study of the Soft Tissue Airway Dimensions in Persons with Hyperdivergentand Normodivergent Facial Patterns. J Oral Maxillofac Surg 1998;56:135-139.
Allhaija E, Al- Khateeb S. Uvulo-Glosso-Pharyngeal Dimensions in Different Anteroposterior Skeletal Patterns. Angle Orthodontist 2005;75(6):1012-1018.
Martin O, Muelas L, Vinas M. Nasopharyngeal cephalometric study of ideal occlusions. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop 2006;130:436e1-436.e9.
Zhong Z, Tang Z, Gao X, Zeng X.A Comparison Study of Upper Airway among Different Skeletal Craniofacial Patterns in Nonsnoring Chinese Children. Angle Orthod. 2010;80:267–274.
Ucar FI, Uysal T. Orofacial airway dimensions in subjects with Class I malocclusion and different growth patterns. Angle Orthod. 2011 May; 81(3):460-8.
Reddy R, Chundri R, Thomas M, Ganapathy K, Shrikant S, Chandrashekar M. Upper And Lower Pharyngeal Airways In Subjects with skeletal class –I, class- II, class-III malocclusions and growth patterns- A Cephalometric Study. Int Journal of Contemporary Dentistry 2011;2(5):12-18.
