Analysis of respiratory pressure across different craniofacial skeletal patterns

Vu Thi Thu Vu, Vu Dinh Viet Anh, Le Dinh Tung, Do Hoang Viet, Tran Thi Bich Hoa, Nguyen Thanh Huyen

Main Article Content

Abstract

Previous studies have primarily focused on the relationship between airway morphology and craniofacial structure, with greater emphasis on sagittal rather than vertical dimensions. However, the association between skeletal malocclusion patterns and respiratory function remains unclear. Although three-dimensional studies have reported increased airway size following orthodontic treatment, morphological changes do not necessarily reflect functional improvement. Airway function depends on airflow resistance and respiratory muscle activity, with respiratory muscle strength (RMS) being an important parameter. This study aimed to evaluate RMS in patients with different skeletal malocclusion patterns and to investigate its relationship with airway dimensions measured by CBCT. The results showed that RMS was highest in Class II (5.8 ± 5.5), followed by Class I (4.6 ± 4.3), and lowest in Class III (3.9 ± 3.0), with a significant difference between Class II and Class III (p = 0.006; ANOVA p = 0.005). These findings indicate differences in respiratory function among skeletal patterns, suggesting that combining RMS assessment with airway morphological analysis may improve orthodontic diagnosis and treatment planning

Article Details

References

1. Cheng S, Brown EC, Hatt A, Butler JE, Gandevia SC, Bilston LE. Healthy humans with a narrow upper airway maintain patency during quiet breathing by dilating the airway during inspiration. J Physiol. 2014;592(21):4763-4774. doi:10.1113/jphysiol.2014.279240
2. Gong X, Li W, Gao X. Effects of craniofacial morphology on nasal respiratory function and upper airway morphology. J Craniofac Surg. 2018;29(7):1717-1722. doi:10.1097/SCS.0000000000004638
3. Rangarajan H, Ayub II, Padmanabhan S. Assessment of maximal inspiratory and expiratory pressures in skeletal Class II patients with different growth patterns. Angle Orthod. 2024;94(3):328-335. doi:10.2319/071723-496.1
4. Storto CJ, Garcez AS, Suzuki H, et al. Assessment of respiratory muscle strength and airflow before and after microimplant-assisted rapid palatal expansion. Angle Orthod. 2019;89(5):713-720. doi:10.2319/070518-504.1
5. Caruso P, Albuquerque AL, Santana PV, et al. Diagnostic methods to assess inspiratory and expiratory muscle strength. J Bras Pneumol. 2015;41(2):110-123. doi:10.1590/S1806-37132015000004474
6. Hairfield WM, Warren DW, Hinton VA, Seaton DL. Inspiratory and expiratory effects of nasal breathing. Cleft Palate J. 1987;24:183-189.
7. Vos W, De Backer J, Devolder A, Vanderveken O, Verhulst S, Salgado R, et al. Correlation between severity of sleep apnea and upper airway morphology based on advanced anatomical and functional imaging. J Biomech. 2007;40:2207-2213.
8. DeBacker JW, Vanderveken OM, Vos WG, Devolder A, Verhulst SL, Verbraecken JA, et al. Functional imaging using computational fluid dynamics to predict treatment success of mandibular advancement devices in sleep-disordered breathing. J Biomech. 2007;40:3708-3714.
9. Xu C, Sin S, McDonough JM, Udupa JK, Guez A, Arens R, et al. Computational fluid dynamics modeling of the upper airway of children with obstructive sleep apnea syndrome in steady flow. J Biomech. 2006;39:2043-2054.
10. Warren DW. A quantitative technique for assessing nasal airway impairment. Am J Orthod. 1984;86:306-314.
11. Crouse U, Laine-Alava MT, Warren DW. Nasal impairment in prepubertal children. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop. 2000;118:69-74.
12. Yucel A, Unlu M, Haktanir A, Acar M, Fidan F. Evaluation of the upper airway cross-sectional area changes in different degrees of severity of obstructive sleep apnea syndrome: cephalometric and dynamic CT study. AJNR Am J Neuroradiol. 2005;26:2624-2629.
13. Mihaescu M, Murugappan S, Kalra M, Khosla S, Gutmark E. Large Eddy Simulation and Reynolds-Averaged Navier-Stokes Modeling of Flow in a Realistic Pharyngeal Airway Model: An Investigation of Obstructive Sleep Apnea. J Biomech. 2008;41(10):2279-2288. doi:10.1016/j.jbiomech.2008.05.009.
14. Zhao M, Barber T, Cistulli PA, Sutherland K, Rosengarten G. Computational fluid dynamics for the assessment of upper airway response to oral appliance treatment in obstructive sleep apnea. J Biomech. 2013;46(1):142-150. doi:10.1016/j.jbiomech.2012.10.007.
15. Katyal V, Pamula Y, Martin AJ, Daynes CN, Kennedy JD, Sampson WJ. Craniofacial and upper airway morphology in pediatric sleep-disordered breathing: systematic review and meta-analysis. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop. 2013;143(1):20-30.e3. doi:10.1016/j.ajodo.2012.08.021.
16. American Thoracic Society/European Respiratory Society. ATS/ERS Statement on respiratory muscle testing. Am J Respir Crit Care Med. 2002;166(4):518-624. doi:10.1164/rccm.166.4.518.
17. Black LF, Hyatt RE. Maximal respiratory pressures: normal values and relationship to age and sex. Am Rev Respir Dis. 1969;99(5):696-702. doi:10.1164/arrd.1969.99.5.696.
18. Evans JA, Whitelaw WA. The assessment of maximal respiratory mouth pressures in adults. Respir Care. 2009;54(10):1348-1359.
19. Arens R, McDonough JM, Corbin AM, et al. Linear dimensions of the upper airway structure during development: assessment by magnetic resonance imaging. Am J Respir Crit Care Med. 2002;165(1):117-122. doi:10.1164/ajrccm.165.1.2106051.
20. Schwab RJ. Upper airway imaging. Clin Chest Med. 1998;19(1):33-54. doi:10.1016/S0272-5231(05)70430-7