Dental Journal of Advance Studies

Register      Login

VOLUME 11 , ISSUE 3 ( September-December, 2023 ) > List of Articles

Original Article

Comparison and Relationship of Upper Airway Width and Maxillary Intermolar Width in Hypodivergent and Hyperdivergent Skeletal Class II Subjects

Preeti Gupta, Vinay Dua, Mitasha Sachdeva, Sonal Bansal

Keywords : Frankfurt mandibular plane angle, Intermolar width, Upper airway width

Citation Information : Gupta P, Dua V, Sachdeva M, Bansal S. Comparison and Relationship of Upper Airway Width and Maxillary Intermolar Width in Hypodivergent and Hyperdivergent Skeletal Class II Subjects. 2023; 11 (3):106-110.

DOI: 10.5005/djas-11014-0024

License: CC BY-NC-ND 4.0

Published Online: 30-12-2023

Copyright Statement:  Copyright © 2023; The Author(s).


Introduction: Dental arch width and facial form are vital aspects in deciding the outcome of orthodontic treatment. Facial morphology is the result of each person's genotype and phenotypic expression. The vertical skeletal relationship is regularly defined by the Frankfurt mandibular plane angle (FMA). A “high-angle” (hyperdivergent) pattern, where the angle is 30° or more, and “low-angle” (hypodivergent) where the angle is 20° or less. The growth and development of the craniofacial complex is affected by the growth of nasal cavities, nasopharyngeal space as well as oropharyngeal space. Objective: Comparison and relationship of upper airway width and maxillary intermolar width (IMW) in hypodivergent and hyperdivergent skeletal Class II subjects. Materials and methods: Study casts and lateral cephalograms of 50 skeletal class II patients divided into 2 groups hypodivergent and hyperdivergent, 25 subjects in each group based on FMA, having no past history of an orthodontic procedure or airway-related surgical procedure were involved. Measurement of upper airway space was recorded on the cephalograms as described by McNamara Jr. Measurement of maxillary IMW was taken on the study casts with the help of a digital vernier caliper. Results: A significant difference was found between IMW and upper airway width in the hyperdivergent and hypodivergent groups. A negative correlation was found between FMA and IMW in both the hypodivergent and hyperdivergent groups. A positive correlation was detected between FMA and upper airway width in the hypodivergent group. There was a weak negative correlation found between upper airway width and IMW. Conclusion: A relationship exists between the maxillary arch dimension and upper airway width with vertical facial morphology. Hyperdivergent growth had a constricted airway and IMW than hypodivergent growth.

  1. Ling JYK, Wong RWK. Dental arch widths of Southern Chinese. Angle Orthod 2009;79(1):54–63. DOI: 10.2319/092007-452.1.
  2. Lopatiene K, Babarskas A. Malocclusion and upper airway obstruction. Medicina (Kaunas) 2002;38(3):277–283. PMID: 12474699.
  3. McNamara JA Jr. Naso-respiratory function and craniofacial growth Monograph 9, Craniofacial Growth Series. Ann Arbor: University of Michigan, Center for Human Growth and Development; 1979; pp. 1–26.
  4. Gupta S, Subrahmanya RM. Assessment of oropharyngeal widths in individuals with different facial skeletal patterns. J Health Allied Sci NU 2014;04(2):34–38. DOI: 10.1055/s-0040-1703761.
  5. de Freitas MR, Alcazar NM, Janson G, et al. Upper and lower pharyngeal airways in subjects with class I and class II malocclusions and different growth patterns. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop 2006;130(6):742–745. DOI: 10.1016/j.ajodo.2005.01.033.
  6. Grauer D, Cevidanes LSH, Styner MA, et al. Pharyngeal airway volume and shape from cone–beam computed tomography: Relationship to facial morphology. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop 2009;136(6): 805–814. DOI: 10.1016/j.ajodo.2008.01.020.
  7. Isaacson JR, Isaacson RJ, Speidel TM, et al. Extreme variation in vertical facial growth and associated variation in skeletal and dental relations. Angle Orthod 1971;41(3):219–229. DOI: 10.1043/0003-3219(1971)041<0219:EVIVFG>2.0.CO;2.
  8. Schudy FF. Vertical growth versus anteroposterior growth as related to function and treatment. Angle Orthod 1964;34(02):75–93. DOI: 10.1043/0003-3219(1964)034<0075:VGVAGA>2.0.CO;2.
  9. Janson G, Bombonatti R, Cruz KS, et al. Buccolingual inclinations of posterior teeth in subjects with different facial patterns. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop 2004;125(3):316–322. DOI: 10.1016/j.ajodo.2003.03.010.
  10. Sharma A, Sharma A, Vaidya A, et al. Relationship between vertical facial pattern and dental arch forms in skeletal class II malocclusion. Saudi J Oral Dent Res 2019;4(9):657–665. DOI: 10.36348/SJODR.2019.v04i09.016.
  11. Ringqvist M. Isometric bite force and its relation to dimensions of the facial skeleton. Acta Odontol Scand 1973;31(1):35–42. DOI: 10.3109/00016357309004611.
  12. van Spronsen PH, Weijis A, Valk J, et al. Relationships between jaw muscle cross-sections and craniofacial morphology in normal adults, studied with magnetic resonance imaging. Eur J Orthod 1991;13(5):351–361. DOI: 10.1093/ejo/13.5.351.
  13. Hannam AG, Wood WW. Relationships between the size and spatial morphology of masseter and medial pterygoid muscles, the craniofacial skeleton, and jaw biomechanics. Am J Phys Anthropol 1989;80(4):429–445. DOI: 10.1002/ajpa.1330800404.
PDF Share
PDF Share

© Jaypee Brothers Medical Publishers (P) LTD.