4.6 Article

Differences in Craniofacial Structures and Obesity in Caucasian and Chinese Patients with Obstructive Sleep Apnea

期刊

SLEEP
卷 33, 期 8, 页码 1075-1080

出版社

OXFORD UNIV PRESS INC
DOI: 10.1093/sleep/33.8.1075

关键词

Obstructive sleep apnea; ethnicity; craniofacial; obesity

资金

  1. Australian Society of Orthodontists Foundation for Research and Education

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Study Objectives: To explore differences in craniofacial structures and obesity between Caucasian and Chinese patients with obstructive sleep apnea (OSA). Design: Inter-ethnic comparison study. Setting: Two sleep disorder clinics in Australia and Hong Kong. Patients: 150 patients with OSA (74 Caucasian, 76 Chinese). Interventions: Anthropometry, cephalometry, and polysomnography were performed and compared. Subgroup analyses after matching for: (1) body mass index (BMI); (2) OSA severity. Measurements and Results: The mean age and BMI were similar between the ethnic groups. Chinese patients had more severe OSA (AHI 35.3 vs 25.2 events/h, P = 0.005). They also had more craniofacial bony restriction, including a shorter cranial base (63.6 +/- 3.3 vs 77.5 +/- 6.7 mm, P < 0.001), maxilla (50.7 +/- 3.7 vs 58.8 +/- 4.3 mm, P < 0.001) and mandible length (65.4 +/- 4.2 vs 77.9 +/- 9.4 mm, P < 0.001). These findings remained after correction for differences in body height. Similar results were shown in the BMI-matched analysis (n = 66). When matched for OSA severity (n = 52), Chinese patients had more craniofacial bony restriction, but Caucasian patients were more overweight (BMI 30.7 vs 28.4 kg/m(2), P = 0.03) and had a larger neck circumference (40.8 vs 39.1 cm, P = 0.004); however, the ratios of BMI to the mandible or maxilla size were similar. Conclusions: Craniofacial factors and obesity contribute differentially to OSA in Caucasian and Chinese patients. For the same degree of OSA severity, Caucasians were more overweight, whereas Chinese exhibited more craniofacial bony restriction.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.6
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据