4.2 Article

Are distinct etiologies of upper airway obstruction in mouth-breathing children associated with different cephalometric patterns?

Journal

Publisher

ELSEVIER IRELAND LTD
DOI: 10.1016/j.ijporl.2014.12.013

Keywords

Mouth breathing; Adenoids; Palatine tonsil; Cephalometry dentofacial growth

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Objective: To test the null hypothesis that mouth-breathing (MB) children by distinct obstructive tissues present a similar cephalometric pattern. Methods: The sample included 226 prepubescent children (113 MB and 113 nasal breathing (NB) controls). An ENT clinical examination, including flexible nasal endoscopy, orthodontic clinical and cephalometric examinations, was performed on the MB population. MB children were grouped into three categories, according to the obstructive tissues: I) adenoid group (AG), 2) tonsillar group (TG), and 3) adenotonsillar group (ATG). The NB controls were matched by gender, age, sagittal dental relationship and skeletal maturation status. Lateral cephalometric radiography provided the cephalometric pattern comparisons between the MB and NB groups. Results: MB cephalometric measurements were significantly different from those of NB children, exception in the SNB (P = 0.056). All comparisons between the three groups of MB children with the NB children showed a significant difference. Finally, even among the three groups of MB children, a significant difference was observed in the measurements of the SNB (P < 0.036), NSGn (P < 0.028) and PFH/TAFH ratio (posterior facial height/total anterior facial height) (P < 0.012). Conclusions: The cephalometric pattern of MB and NB children was not similar. Cephalometric measurements of the MB group differed according to the etiology of upper airway obstruction. Children with isolated hypertrophy of the palatine tonsils presented with a mandible that was positioned more forward and upward compared to children obstructed only by the enlarged adenoid. (C) 2014 Elsevier Ireland Ltd. All rights reserved.

Authors

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

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.2
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available