The korean journal of orthodontics (대한치과교정학회지)

The Korean Association Of Orthodontists (대한치과교정학회)
권호 표지
DOI QR코드

DOI QR Code

Effects of bodily retraction of mandibular incisors versus mandibular setback surgery on pharyngeal airway space: A comparative study

  • Keum, Byeong-Tak (Department of Orthodontics, College of Dentistry, Yonsei University) ;
  • Choi, Sung-Hwan (Department of Orthodontics, College of Dentistry, Yonsei University) ;
  • Choi, Yoon Jeong (Department of Orthodontics, College of Dentistry, Yonsei University) ;
  • Baik, Hyoung-Seon (Department of Orthodontics, College of Dentistry, Yonsei University) ;
  • Lee, Kee-Joon (Department of Orthodontics, College of Dentistry, Yonsei University)
  • Received : 2016.12.13
  • Accepted : 2017.06.01
  • Published : 2017.11.25
Download PDF
⟨ Previous Next ⟩

Abstract

Objective: The purpose of this study was to compare the changes induced in the pharyngeal airway space by orthodontic treatment with bodily retraction of the mandibular incisors and mandibular setback surgery without extraction. Methods: This retrospective study included 63 adult patients (32 men and 31 women). Thirty-three patients who had been treated via four-bicuspid extraction and bodily retraction of the mandibular incisors (incisor retraction, IR group) were compared with 30 patients who had been treated via mandibular setback surgery (MS group) without extraction. Lateral cephalograms were acquired and analyzed before (T1) and after treatment (T2). Results: The superior pharyngeal airway space did not change significantly in either group during treatment. The middle pharyngeal airway space decreased by $1.15{\pm}1.17mm$ and $1.25{\pm}1.35mm$ after treatment in the IR and MS groups, respectively, and the decrease was comparable between the two groups. In the MS group, the inferior pharyngeal airway space (E-IPW) decreased by $0.88{\pm}1.67mm$ after treatment (p < 0.01). The E-IPW was larger in the MS group than in IR group at T1, but it did not differ significantly between the two groups at T2. No significant correlation was observed between changes in the pharyngeal airway space and the skeletal and dental variables in each group. Conclusions: The middle pharyngeal airway space decreased because of the posterior displacement of the mandibular incisors and/or the mandibular body. The E-IPW decreased only in the MS group because of the posterior displacement of only the mandibular body.

Keywords

References

  1. Hoekema A, Hovinga B, Stegenga B, De Bont LG. Craniofacial morphology and obstructive sleep apnoea: a cephalometric analysis. J Oral Rehabil 2003;30:690-6. https://doi.org/10.1046/j.1365-2842.2003.01130.x
  2. Alessandri-Bonetti G, Ippolito DR, Bartolucci ML, D'Anto V, Incerti-Parenti S. Cephalometric predictors of treatment outcome with mandibular advancement devices in adult patients with obstructive sleep apnea: a systematic review. Korean J Orthod 2015;45:308-21. https://doi.org/10.4041/kjod.2015.45.6.308
  3. Tselnik M, Pogrel MA. Assessment of the pharyngeal airway space after mandibular setback surgery. J Oral Maxillofac Surg 2000;58:282-5; discussion 285-7. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0278-2391(00)90053-3
  4. Kawakami M, Yamamoto K, Fujimoto M, Ohgi K, Inoue M, Kirita T. Changes in tongue and hyoid positions, and posterior airway space following mandibular setback surgery. J Craniomaxillofac Surg 2005;33:107-10. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jcms.2004.10.005
  5. Hwang S, Chung CJ, Choi YJ, Huh JK, Kim KH. Changes of hyoid, tongue and pharyngeal airway after mandibular setback surgery by intraoral vertical ramus osteotomy. Angle Orthod 2010;80:302-8. https://doi.org/10.2319/040209-188.1
  6. Gokce SM, Gorgulu S, Gokce HS, Bengi O, Sabuncuoglu F, Ozgen F, et al. Changes in posterior airway space, pulmonary function and sleep quality, following bimaxillary orthognathic surgery. Int J Oral Maxillofac Surg 2012;41:820-9. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijom.2012.01.003
  7. Mattos CT, Vilani GN, Sant'Anna EF, Ruellas AC, Maia LC. Effects of orthognathic surgery on oropharyngeal airway: a meta-analysis. Int J Oral Maxillofac Surg 2011;40:1347-56. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijom.2011.06.020
  8. Park HS, Yoon DY, Park CS, Jeoung SH. Treatment effects and anchorage potential of sliding mechanics with titanium screws compared with the Tweed-Merrifield technique. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop 2008;133:593-600. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ajodo.2006.02.041
  9. Liu YH, Ding WH, Liu J, Li Q. Comparison of the differences in cephalometric parameters after active orthodontic treatment applying mini-screw implants or transpalatal arches in adult patients with bialveolar dental protrusion. J Oral Rehabil 2009;36:687-95. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-2842.2009.01976.x
  10. Germec-Cakan D, Taner T, Akan S. Uvulo-glossopharyngeal dimensions in non-extraction, extraction with minimum anchorage, and extraction with maximum anchorage. Eur J Orthod 2011;33:515-20. https://doi.org/10.1093/ejo/cjq109
  11. Chen Y, Hong L, Wang CL, Zhang SJ, Cao C, Wei F, et al. Effect of large incisor retraction on upper airway morphology in adult bimaxillary protrusion patients. Angle Orthod 2012;82:964-70. https://doi.org/10.2319/110211-675.1
  12. Wang Q, Jia P, Anderson NK, Wang L, Lin J. Changes of pharyngeal airway size and hyoid bone position following orthodontic treatment of Class I bimaxillary protrusion. Angle Orthod 2012;82:115-21. https://doi.org/10.2319/011011-13.1
  13. Burstone CJ, Pryputniewicz RJ. Holographic determination of centers of rotation produced by orthodontic forces. Am J Orthod 1980;77:396-409. https://doi.org/10.1016/0002-9416(80)90105-0
  14. Koo YJ, Choi SH, Keum BT, Yu HS, Hwang CJ, Melsen B, et al. Maxillomandibular arch width differences at estimated centers of resistance: comparison between normal occlusion and skeletal Class III malocclusion. Korean J Orthod 2017;47:167-75. https://doi.org/10.4041/kjod.2017.47.3.167
  15. Chen F, Terada K, Hua Y, Saito I. Effects of bimaxillary surgery and mandibular setback surgery on pharyngeal airway measurements in patients with Class III skeletal deformities. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop 2007;131:372-7. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ajodo.2005.06.028
  16. Degerliyurt K, Ueki K, Hashiba Y, Marukawa K, Nakagawa K, Yamamoto E. A comparative CT evaluation of pharyngeal airway changes in Class III patients receiving bimaxillary surgery or mandibular setback surgery. Oral Surg Oral Med Oral Pathol Oral Radiol Endod 2008;105:495-502. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tripleo.2007.11.012
  17. Jakobsone G, Stenvik A, Espeland L. The effect of maxillary advancement and impaction on the upper airway after bimaxillary surgery to correct Class III malocclusion. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop 2011;139(4 Suppl):e369-76. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ajodo.2010.07.022
  18. Alves PV, Zhao L, O'Gara M, Patel PK, Bolognese AM. Three-dimensional cephalometric study of upper airway space in skeletal Class II and III healthy patients. J Craniofac Surg 2008;19:1497-507. https://doi.org/10.1097/SCS.0b013e31818972ef
  19. de Freitas MR, Alcazar NM, Janson G, de Freitas KM, Henriques JF. Upper and lower pharyngeal airways in subjects with Class I and Class II malocclusions and different growth patterns. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop 2006;130:742-5. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ajodo.2005.01.033
  20. Martin O, Muelas L, Vinas MJ. Comparative study of nasopharyngeal soft-tissue characteristics in patients with Class III malocclusion. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop 2011;139:242-51. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ajodo.2009.07.016
  21. Hong JS, Oh KM, Kim BR, Kim YJ, Park YH. Threedimensional analysis of pharyngeal airway volume in adults with anterior position of the mandible. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop 2011;140:e161-9. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ajodo.2011.04.020
  22. Zheng ZH, Yamaguchi T, Kurihara A, Li HF, Maki K. Three-dimensional evaluation of upper airway in patients with different anteroposterior skeletal patterns. Orthod Craniofac Res 2014;17:38-48. https://doi.org/10.1111/ocr.12029
  23. Yao CC, Lai EH, Chang JZ, Chen I, Chen YJ. Comparison of treatment outcomes between skeletal anchorage and extraoral anchorage in adults with maxillary dentoalveolar protrusion. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop 2008;134:615-24. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ajodo.2006.12.022
  24. Al-Sibaie S, Hajeer MY. Assessment of changes following en-masse retraction with mini-implants anchorage compared to two-step retraction with conventional anchorage in patients with Class II division 1 malocclusion: a randomized controlled trial. Eur J Orthod 2014;36:275-83. https://doi.org/10.1093/ejo/cjt046
  25. Hu Z, Yin X, Liao J, Zhou C, Yang Z, Zou S. The effect of teeth extraction for orthodontic treatment on the upper airway: a systematic review. Sleep Breath 2015;19:441-51. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11325-015-1122-1
  26. Gu G, Gu G, Nagata J, Suto M, Anraku Y, Nakamura K, et al. Hyoid position, pharyngeal airway and head posture in relation to relapse after the mandibular setback in skeletal Class III. Clin Orthod Res 2000; 3:67-77. https://doi.org/10.1034/j.1600-0544.2000.030203.x
  27. Guven O, Saracoglu U. Changes in pharyngeal airway space and hyoid bone positions after body ostectomies and sagittal split ramus osteotomies. J Craniofac Surg 2005;16:23-30. https://doi.org/10.1097/00001665-200501000-00007
  28. Athanasiou AE, Toutountzakis N, Mavreas D, Ritzau M, Wenzel A. Alterations of hyoid bone position and pharyngeal depth and their relationship after surgical correction of mandibular prognathism. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop 1991;100:259-65. https://doi.org/10.1016/0889-5406(91)70063-3
  29. Malkoc S, Usumez S, Nur M, Donaghy CE. Reproducibility of airway dimensions and tongue and hyoid positions on lateral cephalograms. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop 2005;128:513-6. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ajodo.2005.05.001

Cited by

  1. Chin Profile Changes in Skeletal Class III Following Bimaxillary Surgery with or without Advancement Genioplasty vol.13, pp.1, 2017, https://doi.org/10.5856/jkds.2020.13.1.11
  2. Importance in the Occurrence Distribution of Minimum Oropharyngeal Cross-Sectional Area in the Different Skeletal Patterns Using Cone-Beam Computed Tomography vol.2021, pp.None, 2017, https://doi.org/10.1155/2021/5585629