4.6 Article

The Usefulness of Modified Mallampati Score and CT Upper Airway Volume Measurements in Diagnosing OSA among Patients with Breathing-Related Sleep Disorders

Journal

APPLIED SCIENCES-BASEL
Volume 11, Issue 9, Pages -

Publisher

MDPI
DOI: 10.3390/app11093764

Keywords

obstructive sleep apnea; modified Mallampati; airways; Berlin Questionnaire; snoring; oxygen level; CBCT

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Snoring patients showed higher BMI, heart rate, modified Mallampati score, and lower UAV compared to non-snoring patients. The modified Mallampati score was identified as a useful indicator of snoring risk.
Background: Obstructive sleep apnea (OSA) is a condition causing restriction of the airflow through the upper airways during sleep, despite preserved inspiratory muscle activity. This may lead to the development of secondary hypertension, ischemic heart disease, myocardial infarction, and arrhythmia. Moreover, the prevalence of OSA is on the rise. Methods: Comparison of scores from the Berlin Questionnaire, modified Mallampati scores (MMP), pulse oximetry readings and Upper Airway Volume (UAV) data obtained from CBCT (Cone Beam Computed Tomography). The study group of 129 patients of both sexes reporting sleep-related breathing problems completed the Berlin Questionnaire, had their oxygen saturation (SpO2) measured with a PO40 pulse oximeter, and oropharyngeal tissues assessed according to MMP. CBCT scans were put into 3D Amira TM 3D computer analysisto obtain UAV values. Results: Snoring was associated with significantly higher BMI compared to non-snoring patients. Furthermore, snoring patients had higher heart rate, modified Mallampati score, and lower UAV than the non-snoring group. The multifactorial analysis showed MMP as a useful indicator of the risk of snoring (OR = 7.468 (3863-14, 507, p < 0.001)). Conclusions: The composition of MMP together with UAV and the Berlin questionnaire might be reliable indicators to assess the risk of snoring.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.6
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available