Skip to main content
Download PDF

Differences in the effects of orthodontic treatment on airway-craniocervical functional environment in adult and adolescent patients with skeletal class II high-angle: a retrospective pilot study

BMC Oral Health volume 23, Article number: 605 (2023) Cite this article

Abstract

Introduction

This retrospective cohort study aimed to compare the change in upper airway and craniocervical posture after orthodontic treatment between adolescent and adult patients with Class II high-angle malocclusion.

Methods

A total of 12 adolescent (mean ± standard deviation age = 13.0 ± 2.0 years) and 12 adult patients with Class II high-angle malocclusion (mean ± standard deviation age = 23.7 ± 6.4 years) were selected in this study. The lateral cephalograms and cone beam computed tomography images of adolescent and adult patients were taken before and after treatment, which can be employed to evaluate the variables of craniofacial morphology, upper airway, and craniocervical posture through paired t tests, respectively. An independent sample t test was performed to observe the differences between two groups after orthodontic intervention. For adults and adolescents, the correlation between craniofacial morphology, upper airway, and craniocervical posture was determined through Pearson correlation analysis.

Results

In all subjects, the improvements in vertical and sagittal facial morphology after treatment were observed. Anterior and inferior movements of the hyoid bone, an increase of upper airway dimension, posterior tipping of the head and a reduction of cervical inclination in the lower and middle segments post-treatment were identified in adolescence (P < 0.05). Adults displayed anterior movements of the hyoid bone, whereas no significant difference was observed in upper airway dimension and craniocervical posture (P < 0.05). Notable differences were identified in the change of hyoid position and airway volume between two groups (P > 0.05). Mandibular plane inclination, growth pattern, occlusal plane inclination, and chin position were all significantly correlated with craniocervical posture in adolescent patients. Besides, the mandibular growth pattern and chin position in adult patients were significantly correlated with craniocervical posture (P < 0.05).

Conclusions

Orthodontic treatment is capable of enhancing the facial profile of patients with skeletal class II high-angle while improving their upper airway morphology and craniocervical posture, where adolescents and adults differ substantially in that the former exhibit a more favorable alteration in the airway-craniocervical functional environment.

Peer Review reports

Background

Skeletal Class II high-angle malocclusion refers to one of the most challenging malocclusions in orthodontics; it exhibits sagittal underdevelopment and vertical overdevelopment of the mandible [1, 2]. Under the effect of this malocclusion, patients tend to develop poor lateral appearances and restricted airways [3, 4]. Forward mandibular rotation should be incorporated into any treatment plan to tackle down skeletal deformity to address the plethora of difficulties correlated with hyperdivergent Class II patients [5, 6]. While skeletal effect of orthodontic treatment differs in growth potential [6, 7]. The above-described forward mandibular rotation further stimulates the anterior growth of the mandible of a number of growing patients, such that the skeletal facial pattern is enhanced [8]. However, the mentioned therapeutic effects are limited in adult patients.

Patients subjected to skeletal class II high angles will face a higher risk of obstructive sleep apnea hypopnea syndrome (OSAHS) [9]. OSHAS is capable of reducing patients' sleep quality at night, adversely affecting patients' daily work and life, and elevating the risk of serious systemic diseases (e.g., hypertension, diabetes, and coronary heart disease) in adults [10,11,12]. As revealed by recent research, OSHAS patients are getting younger, i.e., an increasing number of adolescents are subjected to narrowed airways [13,14,15]. Compared with adults, airways of adolescent patients were narrower and shorter [16] and the larynx is softer and more pliable, which increases the risk of airway obstruction [17]. Adolescents with constricted airways are more likely to be subjected to stunted height and weight growth, cognitive and attention deficit or hyperactivity, poor academic performance, as well as emotional instability [18,19,20,21,22]. Thus, it is crucial to undertake upper airway monitoring and orthodontic treatment on patients with Class II high-angle malocclusion, particularly adolescents.

Craniocervical posture refers to a condition that preserves the relative stability of the craniofacial and cervical regions in the external and internal environment, and it frequently reflects the outcome of the coordination of gravity and functional demands [23]. Craniocervical posture is linked to both sagittal and vertical skeletal facial morphology. Actually, patients in skeletal Class II show a more lordotic curve of the spine and a larger extension of the head than those in Class III, and as a result, exhibit a significantly greater craniocervical angle [23,24,25]. Additionally, the craniocervical angle is notably increased in high-angle patients compared with low-angle populations [23, 26, 27]. To explain this phenomenon, Solow suggests that this stretching of craniocervical posture is a consequence of the patient's effort to obtain a larger airway [28]. In accordance with the above-mentioned theory, several researchers have reported significant changes in craniocervical posture in response to the relief of airway obstruction [29,30,31]. In contrast, modifications to craniocervical posture can affect growth patterns. Longitudinal research has suggested that people with smaller craniocervical angles are prone to horizontal growth pattern, whereas those with larger craniocervical angles are prone to vertical growth pattern [32, 33]. However, the effect of orthodontic therapy on changes craniocervical posture in class II high-angle patients has been rarely examined, particularly the comparison of the disparities between the two populations, adolescents and adults.

Since the improvement of craniofacial morphology affects airway and craniocervical posture, a hypothesis was proposed that orthodontic treatment will lead to a comparable improvement in the airway and craniocervical posture in patients with skeletal class II high-angle, and this improvement will become more prominent in adolescents. Accordingly, this retrospective cohort research aimed to determine in patients with skeletal class II high-angle malocclusion: (1) the effects of orthodontic treatment on upper airway and craniocervical posture in adolescents and adults, respectively; (2) the differences in the effects of treatment on airway and craniocervical posture in the two patient groups; (3) the correlation between craniofacial morphology, upper airway and craniocervical posture in adolescents and adults, respectively.

Methods

This retrospective study gained approval from the Clinical Research Ethics Committee of the First Affiliated Hospital, College of Medicine, Zhejiang University (protocol code: (2021) IIT (171) and date of approval: 10 March 2021). All subjects were informed of the purpose of this study and gave informed consent prior to the study. A total of 12 adult and 12 adolescent participants were selected from all patients requiring orthodontic treatment from January 2016 to July 2021 in the Department of Stomatology, The First Affiliated Hospital of Zhejiang University Medical College. The inclusion criteria are elucidated as follows: (1) adult patients (age ≥ 18 years old) and adolescent patients (aged from 11 to 17 years old); (2) skeletal Class II malocclusion (ANB angle ≥ 4°) and high-angle pattern (MP-FH angle ≥ 29°); (3) extraction of two maxillary first premolars and two mandibular second premolars; (4) four micro-implants implanted bilaterally in the maxilla and mandible; (5) available CBCT images before and after treatment. The exclusion criteria are presented as follows: (1) history of orthodontic treatment and/or orthognathic surgery; (2) temporomandibular joint disorders syndrome; (3) history of upper airway surgery; (4) impairment in the lip and/or palate function (e.g., a cleft lip and/or palate).

All patients wore a pre-adjusted edgewise appliance of 0.022-inch slot (3 M Unitek, Monrovia, CA, USA) after their maxillary first premolars and mandibular second premolars were extracted. Four miniscrews (VectorTAS; Ormco, Orange, Calif; length, 8 mm; diameter, 1.4 mm) were implanted bilaterally in the maxilla and mandible between the second premolars and the first molars through the buccal mucosa after local anesthesia by the same orthodontist. A 150 g force load was delivered with an elastic chain four weeks after the placement of microimplant. The treatment objective was Class I canine and molar relationship, and the respective patient's treatment lasted for nearly three years.

CBCT (NewTom VGi, Verona, Italy) was taken in all patients prior to and after orthodontic treatment. During the scan, the patient was instructed to maintain a natural upright head position and maximum intercuspation, with consistent scanning parameters (tube voltage 110 kV, tube current 3.5 mA, exposure time 3.6 s, and definition 0.3 mm). The scanning ranged from the superior orbital edge to the lower mandibular edge. For 3D reconstruction and analysis, all CBCT data were saved in DICOM format and then input into Dolphin Imaging 11.95 software (Chatsworth, Los Angeles, CA, USA).

All parameters were measured on the lateral cephalogram from CBCT by projecting the 3D reconstruction image into the midsagittal plane from right to left (Table 1; Fig. 1) to examine dental, skeletal, hyoid position and craniocervical posture indexes.

Table 1 Cephalometric landmarks and measurements used in this study
Full size table
Fig. 1
figure 1

Cephalometric landmarks and measurements identified on lateral cephalometric image. SN plane: the line connecting the point S to N; FH plane: the line connecting the point O to P; PP Plane: the line connecting the point ANS to PNS; OP plane: The line between the midpoint of the upper and mandibular first permanent molar and the midpoint of the upper and mandibular middle incisor; C3VP: The line tangent to the anterior border of the third cervical vertebra; Ver: The gravity-determined vertical line; OPT: The line between the tangent point of the superior, posterior extremity of the odontoid process of the second cervical vertebra (cv2tg) and the most inferior-posterior point of the second cervical vertebra (cv2ip); CVT: The line between the most inferior-posterior point of the second cervical vertebra (cv2ip) and that of the fourth cervical vertebra (cv4ip); EVT: The line between the most inferior-posterior point of the fourth cervical vertebra (cv4ip) and that of the sixth cervical vertebra (cv6ip). For detailed definition of each variable, refer to Table 1

Full size image

The airway dimensions were examined before and after treatment based on Dolphin Imaging software. All images were standardized in orientation with the PP plane parallel to the horizontal plane. All planes defining the upper airway boundary were parallel to the PP plane. The upper airway was manually divided into three midsagittal parts (i.e., velopharynx airway (VPA), glossopharynx airway (GPA) and laryngopharynx airway (LPA)) (Fig. 2). The volume and minimum areas of VPA, GPA and LPA were obtained automatically using Dolphin software after the boundaries were set.

Fig. 2
figure 2

Segments of the upper airway on midsagittal CBCT image using Dolphin Imaging 11.95 software (Chatsworth, Los Angeles, CA, USA). Velopharynx airway (VPA): from the plane of ANS-PNS to the plane across the most posteroinferior point of the uvula; Glossopharynx airway (GPA): from the plane across the most posteroinferior point of the uvula to the plane across the most superior point of the epiglottis. Laryngopharynx airway (LPA): from the plane across the most superior point of the epiglottis to the plane across point of the epiglottic vallecula. Minimum cross-sectional area of each upper airway segment (Min VCSA, Min GCSA and Min LCSA) was automatically identified and measured by the Dolphin software

Full size image

To be specific, SPSS 26 software (IBM Corp., Armonk, NY, USA) was employed. Whether the data followed a normal distribution was determined through the Kolmogorov–Smirnov test. A comparison was drawn between pretreatment and posttreatment outcome variables through Wilcoxon signed rank test for nonnormally distributed variables and through paired t test in terms of normally distributed variables. Moreover, adolescent and adult outcome factors were compared through unpaired t test for normally distributed variables and Wilcoxon signed rank test in terms of non-normally distributed variables. Furthermore, correlation analysis for the respective measurement index was conducted prior to treatment. Items that followed a normal distribution were measured through Pearson correlation analysis, while those that were not normally distributed were examined through Spearman rank correlation analysis. The bilateral test level was set at α = 0.05, and p < 0.05 indicated a difference that achieved statistical significance.

Result

A total of 31 patients who conformed to the inclusion criteria were selected from over 400 orthodontic treatment recordings. Six of them were eliminated due to temporomandibular joint problems (n = 5) and prior to orthodontic therapy (n = 2). Lastly, 24 patients' records were analyzed, comprising 12 adults (mean ± standard deviation age = 23.7 ± 6.4 years) and 12 adolescents (mean ± standard deviation age = 13.0 ± 2.0 years). All patients fulfilled the treatment aim of a Class I canine and/or molar relationship with an improved facial profile.

First, the 13 craniofacial morphology indices between the pre-treatment skeletal Class II high-angle adolescent and adult patients are not significantly different (Table 2).

Table 2 Comparison of dental and skeletal variables before orthodontic treatment between adolescents and adults
Full size table

Table 3 lists the parameter of the craniofacial morphology, upper airway, and craniocervical posture in adolescent patients before and after treatment. After treatment, OP-FH, FMA and ANB were dramatically decreased by 1.99°, 2.60°, and 2.55° compared with baseline measurements, thus suggesting a counterclockwise rotation of the occlusal plane and the mandible, respectively. In addition, the Sum angle significantly declined by 2.56°, representing a higher propensity for horizontal growth of the mandible. The NBa-PtGn and Pog’-N’TVL were significantly increased by 1.28 mm and 4.38 mm, thus suggesting the forward movement of the chin. For upper airway indicators, H-MP, H-FHP, and H-C3VP were significantly increased, indicating a forward and downward position of the hyoid bone. Moreover, the volume (VPA, GPA and LPA) and minimum cross-sectional area (Min VCSA, Min GCSA, and Min LCSA) of the respective upper airway segment were notably increased after treatment. For changes in craniocervical posture, the values of OPT/Ver, CVT/Ver and EVT/Ver were markedly elevated by 2.83°, 3.58° and 5.00°, respectively. All the two craniofacial inclination angles (i.e., SN/Ver and PP/Ver) were significantly increased by 1.83° and 3.50°. Furthermore, the craniocervical angle SN-CVT was notably decreased by 1.67° after treatment.

Table 3 Comparison of all variables before and after orthodontic treatment in adolescent patients
Full size table

Table 4 lists the same outcome variables in adult patients before and after treatment. After treatment, the OP-FH, FMA, ANB and Sum values in the adult group were also significantly decreased by 1.41°, 2.27°, 1.60°, and 2.05°, respectively, indicating a counterclockwise rotation of the occlusal plane and the mandible in adults after the orthodontic intervention. Moreover, NBa-PtGn and Pog’-N’TVL were significantly increased by 1.39 mm and 3.61 mm, respectively, illustrating the anterior displacement of the chin in adult patients. With respect to the upper airway variables, only H-C3VP exhibited a statistically significant increase, suggesting a forward position of the hyoid bone after our orthodontic intervention. However, no differences with statistical significance were observed in upper airway dimensions and craniocervical posture.

Table 4 Comparison of all variables before and after orthodontic treatment in adult patients
Full size table

To conduct an in-depth investigation of the differences in the treatment of upper airway and craniocervical posture between orthodontic procedures in adult and adolescent patients with skeletal class II high angles, we evaluated seventeen variables, as depicted in Table 5. The values of ΔH-MP in adult patients were considerably lower than those in adolescent patients, indicating that the location of the hyoid bone was elevated in adult patients following therapy. Moreover, the ΔVPA, ΔGPA, and ΔLPA of adult patients were significantly lower than those of adolescent patients, suggesting that adolescent patients had more pronouncedly improved upper airway dimensions after orthodontic intervention. Nevertheless, no significant differences were observed in cervical, craniofacial and craniocervical indices.

Table 5 Comparison of effects post treatment between adolescents and adults
Full size table

Pairwise correlation analysis was conducted on all variables before orthodontic treatment, and correlation heatmaps were generated for adolescents (Fig. 3a) and adults (Fig. 3b). As indicated by the result, cervical variables CVT/EVT and CVT/ver were negatively correlated with H-FHP in adolescent patient. Furthermore, craniofacial angles SN/Ver and PP/Ver were negatively correlated with FMA and Sum, respectively. The value of PP/Ver is also significantly correlated with Pog’-N’TVL and OP-FH. Besides, craniocervical angles SN-CVT was negatively correlated with FMA. While in adult patients, both craniofacial angles SN/Ver and craniocervical angles SN-CVT, SN-OPT were significantly correlated with Sum and NBa-PtGn.

Fig. 3
figure 3

Correlation heatmap of craniofacial morphology, upper airway and craniocervical posture in adolescent (a) and adult (b) patients. Positive correlation is represented by red ellipses, while negative correlation is represented by blue ellipses, with a deeper hue indicating a stronger correlation. Specifically, the darker the red, the closer the r is to 1, and the darker the blue, the closer the r is to − 1. Similarly, the ellipse's size also fluctuates as a result of variations in the correlation. The closer the r is to 1 (red) or − 1 (blue), the closer the ellipse is to a line, whereas the closer the r is to 0, the closer the ellipse is to a perfect circle. Correlations with significant differences are highlighted in the figure. (*: p < 0.05; **: p < 0.01;)

Full size image

Discussion

In this study, a major comparison was drawn in terms of the changes of upper airway and craniocervical posture following orthodontic treatment in adult and adolescent patients who were subjected to skeletal class II high-angle malocclusion. Second, the correlation between craniofacial morphology, upper airway, and craniocervical posture was explored. Adult and adolescent patients who underwent orthodontic treatment showed ameliorated upper airway and craniocervical posture. Notably, the teenage patients exhibited more pronounced changes. Furthermore, mandibular plane inclination, growth pattern, occlusal plane inclination, and chin position were markedly correlated with craniocervical posture of adolescent patients. In adult patients, however, only mandibular growth pattern and chin position were significantly correlated with craniocervical posture.

First, the adolescent and adult groups had significantly reduced ANB angles by 2.55° and 1.60° after undergoing treatment. As revealed by this result, the patient's skeletal pattern and profile have been significantly improved through successful orthodontic therapy. This improvement can be manifested in two ways as follows: (1) by employing maximum anchoring in anterior tooth retraction, which can cause alveolar bone remodeling to a certain extent, such that the ANB angle can be improved; (2) by controlling the vertical dimensions of dental arches through micro-implant to reduce the inclination of occlusal plane [34]. For adults, the mandibular plane can be generally rotated counterclockwise by controlling the occlusal plane and acquiring a moderate lingual inclination of the lower anterior teeth, such that the ANB angle is likely to be reduced. The control of the occlusal plane in adolescent patients can contribute to the forward growth pattern of the mandible, such that the SNB and ANB angle can be reduced, and the chin forward can be extended [1].

It is challenging to determine how to counter-rotate the mandible to enhance the poor facial profile of patients with skeletal class II high-angle [5]. The counterclockwise rotation of the occlusal plane can drive the rotation of mandibular plane, as indicated by recent research [1, 34]. Moreover, controlling occlusal plane in growing individuals is frequently accompanied by the downward inclination of mandibular plane [9, 34]. Thus, occlusal plane control takes on a critical significance to the treatment of skeletal class II high-angle malocclusion whether in adult or adolescent patients [35]. Micro-implant anchorage (MIA) technique is capable of preventing the elongation and proximal-central movement of the molar when the extraction space is closed, such that the clockwise rotation effect of the occlusal plane can be avoided [36]. Moreover, a further counterclockwise rotation of the occlusal plane is possible since the micro-implant can act directly on the molar for vertical control [37, 38], suggesting that the MIA technology can contribute to the control of the occlusal plane and even counterrotate the mandible. In this study, micro-implants were adopted to control the occlusal plane, such that the OP-FH was substantially reduced by 1.41° in adult patients and 1.99° in adolescent patients. Furthermore, a considerable counterclockwise rotation of the mandible was achieved by 2.27° and 2.56°, respectively. The above-mentioned result indicated that the skeletal vertical relation was improved significantly in two groups after orthodontic treatment, accompanied by a significant improvement in facial appearance.

It has been widely recognized that the counterclockwise rotation of the mandible may lead to suprahyoid muscle tension and then form an anterosuperior position of the hyoid bone, thus contributing to an enlargement of upper airway dimension [2, 3, 39, 40]. However, the study by Li et al. has suggested that occlusal plane control does not significantly improve the pharyngeal airway dimensions after the treatment of hyperdivergent skeletal Class II malocclusion adult patients [34]. The findings of this study are well consistent with those of Li et al. In the adult group, although the angle of occlusal plane and mandibular plane were lowered, the volume and minimum cross-sectional area of their upper airway did not significantly increase, but the hyoid position was significantly shifted forward.

For adolescent patients, Pavoni C. reported that the adjustment of mandibular retrusion with functional appliances in Class II malocclusion adolescents improved the position of hyoid bone and enlarged airway dimensions [41, 42]. Similar to the outcomes of above research, we observed a significant rise in VPA, LPA, Min GCSA, Min LCSA, and Min UCSA. Moreover, the hyoid position changed in an anterior-inferior direction, which may relate to the airway length increasing during growth and devlopment [16, 43]. Moreover, the value of ΔVPA, ΔGPA and ΔLPA is significantly larger in teenagers than the amount in the adult groups. The research of Tanaka et al. [44] has suggested that the mandible will adapt forward in patients during growth and development, and the mandible may migrate more forward with the decrease of the inclination of OP plane [25, 44]. This study speculates that this mandibular advancement in adolescents leads to a more notable improvement in the upper airway following orthodontic treatment.

Craniocervical posture is correlated with the function of craniocervicomandibular system, and reflects the balance among post-cervical, suprahyoid, infrahyoid and masticatory muscle groups [33, 45]. And it is also reliant on different sitting and standing postures [46]. In comparison to standing, postural muscular activity may be lower during sitting, meanwhile, the cervical spine position is more susceptible to the thoraco-lumbar spine and obesity [46, 47]. Accordingly, to eliminate the potential effects of above variables, we selected the standing posture for our evaluation.

Recently, the interrelation between malocclusion and craniocervical posture causes concerns in orthodontic field [23, 26, 32, 48]. Numerous studies have shown significant correlations between craniocervical posture and craniofacial morphology [48,49,50]. Thus, we considered whether orthodontic effects on the craniofacial complex could improve craniocervical posture in patients with class II skeletal high angles. To our knowledge, no researches were performed to about that. In this study, a noticeable increase in craniofacial angulation and a decrease of SN/CVT in adolescents were identified, suggesting that posterior tipping of the head occurred after treatment. Moreover, the middle and lower segments of cervical column were be more upright with the increase of CVT/Ver and EVT/Ver, as indicated by the result. However, no significant difference was observed in the craniocervical angles in adult patients after treatment. This outcome may be explained by a remarkable increase of the upper airway dimensions and anterior displacement of the hyoid bone, thus leading to a compensatory elimination of the craniocervical posture in adolescents. As revealed by the above finding, orthodontic treatment can be effective in correcting the forward-inclined craniocervical posture in adolescent patients with hyperdivergent skeletal Class II malocclusion.

More research has placed a focus on connection between dentofacial deformities and craniocervical function (e.g., skeletal morphology, upper airway, and craniocervical posture), whereas the variations by different age groups have ben rarely investigated [51,52,53]. In this study, the correlation analysis was conducted on the two types of patients to gain more insights into the physiological variations in the upper airway and craniocervical posture of patients with skeletal class II high angle at different ages, which may allow for more tailored treatment decisions for each group of patients. Accordingly, these variables prior to orthodontic intervention were applied to correlation analysis in case of its interference. The teenage group's findings demonstrated that the craniofacial and craniocervical angle was negatively correlated with FMA. In contrast, the majority of recent investigations on the correlation between craniocervical posture and vertical skeletal pattern has suggested that patients with larger FMA typically have larger craniocervical angle [23, 27, 54]. A hypothesis was proposed that high angle adolescent patients with upper airway constriction will extend their entire cervical column instead of merely moving head forward to obtain enough airflow. The possible reason for this hypothesis is that a significant-degree extension of craniofacial and craniocervical positions cannot be achieved without impairing the horizontal visual axis in adolescences with high angle [55]. Besides, the data of this study indicated that the hyoid position parameter H-FHP was correlated with inclination of middle cervical column. Cervical extension, as a compensating strategy, may facilitate the moving of the hyoid bone from the posterior pharyngeal wall permit the release of the obstructed airways [55, 56]. Although the findings of this study support this hypothesis, it is uncertain whether these discrepancies in craniocervical posture are correlated with upper airway dimensions in adolescents. However, for adult patients, we found that craniocervical posture was significantly correlated with chin position and vertical growth pattern. Nevertheless, in patients with little growth potential, it is basically not expected to perform growth interventions. Together with the results in Table 4, we concluded that orthodontic intervention can hardly correct the craniocervical posture of adult patients. As in the study of adolescents, upper airway and craniocervical position did not show a correlation in adult patients.

This study may have had some potential restrictions. First, the sample size is relatively small to prevents it from drawing generalized conclusions. Moreover, the information of craniocervical posture is relatively constrained since acknowledged measurement parameters are few and can only be evaluated in two-dimension images. Also, soft tissues are not covered due to the technological constraints of CBCT, whose changes may affect the airway and craniocervical posture outcomes.

In conclusion, orthodontic treatment can improve facial profile of individuals with skeletal class II high-angle, while also enhancing their upper airway morphology and craniocervical posture, where adolescents and adults differ greatly and the former show a more favorable change in craniocervical functional environment. Thus, we should pay close attention to the upper airway and craniocervical posture of adolescents. Through early orthodontic intervention, we are supposed to reconstruct craniocervical physiological ventilation and postural balance, so as to promote the benign growth and development trend of children's multidisciplinary orientation.

Availability of data and materials

The datasets used and/or analysed during the current study are available from the corresponding author on reasonable request.

Abbreviations

OSAHS:

Obstructive sleep apnea hypopnea syndrome

CBCT:

Cone-beam Computed Tomography

MIA:

Micro-implant anchorage

References

  1. Ye R, et al. Occlusal plane canting reduction accompanies mandibular counterclockwise rotation in camouflaging treatment of hyperdivergent skeletal Class II malocclusion. Angle Orthod. 2013;83:758–65. https://doi.org/10.2319/101512-801.1.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  2. Ning R, Guo J, Martin D. Effect of premolar extraction on upper airway volume and hyoid position in hyperdivergent adults with different mandibular length. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop. 2022;161:e390–9. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ajodo.2021.01.027.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  3. Shi X, et al. Effects of miniscrew-assisted orthodontic treatment with premolar extractions on upper airway dimensions in adult patients with Class II high-angle malocclusion. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop. 2021;159:724–32. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ajodo.2020.02.016.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  4. Jayaratne YS & Zwahlen RA. The oropharyngeal airway in young adults with skeletal class II and class III deformities: a 3-D morphometric analysis. PLoS One. 2016;11:e0148086. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0148086. 

  5. Buschang PH, Carrillo R, Rossouw PE. Orthopedic correction of growing hyperdivergent, retrognathic patients with miniscrew implants. J Oral Maxillofac Surg. 2011;69:754–62. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.joms.2010.11.013.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  6. Kinzinger G, Diedrich P. Skeletal effects in class II treatment with the functional mandibular advancer (FMA)? J Orofac Orthop. 2005;66:469–90. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00056-005-0524-2.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  7. Cretella Lombardo E et al. Evaluation of sagittal airway dimensions after face mask therapy with rapid maxillary expansion in Class III growing patients. Int J Pediatr Otorhinolaryngol. 2020;130:109794. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijporl.2019.109794.

  8. Zhang C, Xu L, Lin J. Clinical efficacy of counterclockwise rotating the functional occlusal plane using micro-implant anchorage. Zhejiang Da Xue Xue Bao Yi Xue Ban. 2021;50:195–204. https://doi.org/10.3724/zdxbyxb-2021-0123.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  9. Zhao T, et al. Impact of pediatric obstructive sleep apnea on the development of Class II hyperdivergent patients receiving orthodontic treatment: (A pilot study). Angle Orthod. 2018;88:560–6. https://doi.org/10.2319/110617-759.1.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  10. Gottlieb DJ, Punjabi NM. Diagnosis and Management of Obstructive Sleep Apnea: A Review. JAMA. 2020;323:1389–400. https://doi.org/10.1001/jama.2020.3514.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  11. Javaheri S, et al. Sleep apnea: types, mechanisms, and clinical cardiovascular consequences. J Am Coll Cardiol. 2017;69:841–58. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jacc.2016.11.069.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  12. Somers VK, et al. Sleep apnea and cardiovascular disease: an American Heart Association/American College of Cardiology Foundation Scientific Statement from the American Heart Association Council for High Blood Pressure Research Professional Education Committee, Council on Clinical Cardiology, Stroke Council, and Council on Cardiovascular Nursing. J Am Coll Cardiol. 2008;52:686–717. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jacc.2008.05.002.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  13. Schwab RJ, et al. Understanding the anatomic basis for obstructive sleep apnea syndrome in adolescents. Am J Respir Crit Care Med. 2015;191:1295–309. https://doi.org/10.1164/rccm.201501-0169OC.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  14. Marcus CL, et al. Diagnosis and management of childhood obstructive sleep apnea syndrome. Pediatrics. 2012;130:e714-755. https://doi.org/10.1542/peds.2012-1672.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  15. Behrents RG et al. Obstructive sleep apnea and orthodontics: an American Association of Orthodontists White Paper. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop. 2019;156:13–28 e11, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ajodo.2019.04.009.

  16. Abramson Z, Susarla S, Troulis M, Kaban L. Age-related changes of the upper airway assessed by 3-dimensional computed tomography. J Craniofac Surg. 2009;20(Suppl 1):657–63. https://doi.org/10.1097/SCS.0b013e318193d521.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  17. Di Cicco M, et al. Structural and functional development in airways throughout childhood: children are not small adults. Pediatr Pulmonol. 2021;56:240–51. https://doi.org/10.1002/ppul.25169.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  18. Huynh NT, Desplats E, Almeida FR. Orthodontics treatments for managing obstructive sleep apnea syndrome in children: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Sleep Med Rev. 2016;25:84–94. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.smrv.2015.02.002.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  19. Chervin RD, et al. School performance, race, and other correlates of sleep-disordered breathing in children. Sleep Med. 2003;4:21–7. https://doi.org/10.1016/s1389-9457(02)00243-5.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  20. Chang SJ, Chae KY. Obstructive sleep apnea syndrome in children: Epidemiology, pathophysiology, diagnosis and sequelae. Korean J Pediatr. 2010;53:863–71. https://doi.org/10.3345/kjp.2010.53.10.863.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  21. Conley RS. Evidence for dental and dental specialty treatment of obstructive sleep apnoea. Part 1: the adult OSA patient and Part 2: the paediatric and adolescent patient. J Oral Rehabil. 2011;38:136–156. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-2842.2010.02136.x.

  22. Krysta K, Bratek A, Zawada K, Stepanczak R. Cognitive deficits in adults with obstructive sleep apnea compared to children and adolescents. J Neural Transm (Vienna). 2017;124:187–201. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00702-015-1501-6.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  23. Alexa VT, et al. Cephalometric assessment regarding craniocervical posture in orthodontic patients. Sci Rep. 2022;12:21729. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41598-022-26243-6.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  24. D’Attilio M, Caputi S, Epifania E, Festa F, Tecco S. Evaluation of cervical posture of children in skeletal class I, II, and III. Cranio. 2005;23:219–28. https://doi.org/10.1179/crn.2005.031.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  25. Ogliara F, Greven M. Occlusal plane dictated skeletal and dental malocclusion with concomitant postural diagnostic findings-a pilot study using functional positioning overlays (FPO). J Clin Med Res. 2020;1:1–17. https://doi.org/10.46889/JCMR.2020.1205.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  26. Liu Y, Wang S, Wang C, Liu C. Relationships of vertical facial pattern, natural head position and craniocervical posture in young Chinese children. Cranio. 2018;36:311–7. https://doi.org/10.1080/08869634.2017.1345461.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  27. Solow B, Sonnesen L. Head posture and malocclusions. Eur J Orthod. 1998;20:685–93. https://doi.org/10.1093/ejo/20.6.685.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  28. Solow B, Siersbaek-Nielsen S, Greve E. Airway adequacy, head posture, and craniofacial morphology. Am J Orthod. 1984;86:214–23. https://doi.org/10.1016/0002-9416(84)90373-7.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  29. Woodside DG, Linder-Aronson S. The channelization of upper and lower anterior face heights compared to population standard in males between ages 6 to 20 years. Eur J Orthod. 1979;1:25–40. https://doi.org/10.1093/ejo/1.1.25.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  30. Wenzel A, Henriksen J, Melsen B. Nasal respiratory resistance and head posture: effect of intranasal corticosteroid (Budesonide) in children with asthma and perennial rhinitis. Am J Orthod. 1983;84:422–6. https://doi.org/10.1016/0002-9416(93)90005-r.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  31. Tecco S, Festa F, Tete S, Longhi V, D’Attilio M. Changes in head posture after rapid maxillary expansion in mouth-breathing girls: a controlled study. Angle Orthod. 2005;75:171–6. https://doi.org/10.1043/0003-3219(2005)075%3c0167:CIHPAR%3e2.0.CO;2.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  32. Solow B, Tallgren A. Head posture and craniofacial morphology. Am J Phys Anthropol. 1976;44:417–35. https://doi.org/10.1002/ajpa.1330440306.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  33. Dubojska AM, Smiech-Slomkowska G. Natural head position and growth of the facial part of the skull. Cranio. 2013;31:109–17. https://doi.org/10.1179/crn.2013.018.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  34. Li X, et al. Effect of occlusal plane control procedure on hyoid bone position and pharyngeal airway of hyperdivergent skeletal Class II patients. Angle Orthod. 2017;87:293–9. https://doi.org/10.2319/041416-308.1.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  35. Wang H, Jiang L, Yi Y, Li H, Lan T. Camouflage treatment guided by facial improvement in hyperdivergent skeletal class II malocclusion. Ann Transl Med. 2022;10:163. https://doi.org/10.21037/atm-22-135.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  36. Becker K, et al. Efficacy of orthodontic mini implants for en masse retraction in the maxilla: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Int J Implant Dent. 2018;4:35. https://doi.org/10.1186/s40729-018-0144-4.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  37. Kuroda S, Katayama A, Takano-Yamamoto T. Severe anterior open-bite case treated using titanium screw anchorage. Angle Orthod. 2004;74:558–67. https://doi.org/10.1043/0003-3219(2004)074%3c0558:SAOCTU%3e2.0.CO;2.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  38. Oliveira TF, Nakao CY, Goncalves JR, Santos-Pinto A. Maxillary molar intrusion with zygomatic anchorage in open bite treatment: lateral and oblique cephalometric evaluation. Oral Maxillofac Surg. 2015;19:71–7. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10006-014-0457-2.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  39. CobanBuyukbayraktar Z, Camci H. Dentoalveolar, skeletal, pharyngeal airway, cervical posture, hyoid bone position, and soft palate changes with Myobrace and Twin-block: a retrospective study. BMC Oral Health. 2023;23:53. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12903-023-02773-x.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  40. Tselnik M & Pogrel MA. Assessment of the pharyngeal airway space after mandibular setback surgery. J Oral Maxillofac Surg. 2000;58:282–285; discussion 285–287. https://doi.org/10.1016/s0278-2391(00)90053-3.

  41. Pavoni C, Cretella Lombardo E, Franchi L, Lione R & Cozza P. Treatment and post-treatment effects of functional therapy on the sagittal pharyngeal dimensions in Class II subjects. Int J Pediatr Otorhinolaryngol. 2017;101:47–50. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijporl.2017.07.032.

  42. Pavoni C, Cretella Lombardo E, Lione R, Bollero P, Ottaviani F, Cozza P. Orthopaedics treatment effects of functional therapy on the sagittal pharyngeal dimensions in subjects with Sleep-disordered Breathing and Class II malocclusion. Acta Otorhinolaryngol Ital. 2017;37(6):479–85.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  43. Chiang CC, Jeffres MN, Miller A, Hatcher DC. Three-dimensional airway evaluation in 387 subjects from one university orthodontic clinic using cone beam computed tomography. Angle Orthod. 2012;82:985–92. https://doi.org/10.2319/122811-801.1.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  44. Tanaka EM & Sato S. Longitudinal alteration of the occlusal plane and development of different dentoskeletal frames during growth. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop. 2008;134:602 e601–611; discussion 602–603. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ajodo.2008.02.017.

  45. Piccin CF, Pozzebon D, Scapini F, Correa EC. Craniocervical posture in patients with obstructive sleep apnea. Int Arch Otorhinolaryngol. 2016;20:189–95. https://doi.org/10.1055/s-0036-1584295.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  46. Shaghayegh Fard B, Ahmadi A, Maroufi N & Sarrafzadeh J. Evaluation of forward head posture in sitting and standing positions. Eur Spine J. 2016;25:3577–3582, https://doi.org/10.1007/s00586-015-4254-x.

  47. Nordin M, Frankel VH. Basic biomechanics of the musculoskeletal system. Baltimore: Lippincott Williams & Wilkins; 2001. ISBN 0-683-30247-7.

  48. Paco, M., Duarte, J. A. & Pinho, T. Orthodontic treatment and craniocervical posture in patients with temporomandibular disorders: an observational study. Int J Environ Res Public Health. 2021;18. https://doi.org/10.3390/ijerph18063295.

  49. craniocervical posture and craniofacial morphology. Gomes Lde, C., Horta, K. O., Goncalves, J. R. & Santos-Pinto, A. D. Systematic review. Eur J Orthod. 2014;36:55–66. https://doi.org/10.1093/ejo/cjt004.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  50. Kim P, Sarauw MT, Sonnesen L. Cervical vertebral column morphology and head posture in preorthodontic patients with anterior open bite. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop. 2014;145:359–66. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ajodo.2013.11.017.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  51. Nath M, Ahmed J, Ongole R, Denny C, Shenoy N. CBCT analysis of pharyngeal airway volume and comparison of airway volume among patients with skeletal Class I, Class II, and Class III malocclusion: a retrospective study. Cranio. 2021;39:379–90. https://doi.org/10.1080/08869634.2019.1652993.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  52. AlKofide EA, AlNamankani E. The association between posture of the head and malocclusion in Saudi subjects. Cranio. 2007;25:98–105. https://doi.org/10.1179/crn.2007.016.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  53. Pachi F, Turla R, Checchi AP. Head posture and lower arch dental crowding. Angle Orthod. 2009;79:873–9. https://doi.org/10.2319/060708-595.1.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  54. Ansar J, et al. Soft tissue airway dimensions and craniocervical posture in subjects with different growth patterns. Angle Orthod. 2015;85:604–10. https://doi.org/10.2319/042314-299.1.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  55. Ozbek MM, Miyamoto K, Lowe AA, Fleetham JA. Natural head posture, upper airway morphology and obstructive sleep apnoea severity in adults. Eur J Orthod. 1998;20:133–43. https://doi.org/10.1093/ejo/20.2.133.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  56. Chaves TC, et al. Craniocervical posture and hyoid bone position in children with mild and moderate asthma and mouth breathing. Int J Pediatr Otorhinolaryngol. 2010;74:1021–7. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijporl.2010.05.031.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgements

Not applicable.

Funding

This research was funded by the National Natural Science Foundation of China (No. 81970978).

Author information

Author notes

  1. Yiyang Shen and Xin Li are co-first authors.

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Stomatology, The First Affiliated Hospital, College of Medicine, Zhejiang University, Hangzhou, Zhejiang, China

    Yiyang Shen, Xin Li, Xiaoyan Feng, Luxi Weng, Yufeng Shang & Jun Lin

  2. Key Laboratory of Oral Biomedical Research of Zhejiang Province, Zhejiang University School of Stomatology, Hangzhou, Zhejiang, China

    Yiyang Shen, Xin Li, Xiaoyan Feng, Luxi Weng, Yufeng Shang & Jun Lin

  3. The Affiliated Lihuili Hospital, Ningbo University, Ningbo, Zhejiang, China

    Lan Yu

  4. Department of Stomatology, Hangzhou Geriatric Hospital, Hangzhou, Zhejiang, China

    Chenxing Zhang

Authors
  1. Yiyang Shen
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Xin Li
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Xiaoyan Feng
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Lan Yu
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  5. Luxi Weng
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  6. Chenxing Zhang
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  7. Yufeng Shang
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  8. Jun Lin
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Contributions

SYY and LX searched the papers, analyzed the data, and contributed to drafting and critical revision of the article. FXY and YL collected and analyzed the data, and assisted in editing the original manuscript. WLX, ZCX and SYF helped modify the manuscript. LJ designed the study, critically reviewed the manuscript and supervised the whole study process. All authors have read and approved the manuscript.

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Jun Lin.

Ethics declarations

Ethics approval and consent to participate

This study was approved by the Clinical Research Ethics Committee of the First Affiliated Hospital, College of Medicine, Zhejiang University (protocol code: (2021) IIT (171) and date of approval: 10 March 2021) and was conducted in accordance with the Declaration of Helsinki for research involving human subjects. The study was explained, and informed consent was obtained from the patients. As for adolescents, the informed consent was obtained from their legal guardians.

Consent for publication

Not applicable.

Competing interests

The authors declare no competing interests.

Additional information

Publisher's Note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Rights and permissions

Open Access This article is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License, which permits use, sharing, adaptation, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons licence, and indicate if changes were made. The images or other third party material in this article are included in the article's Creative Commons licence, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material is not included in the article's Creative Commons licence and your intended use is not permitted by statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will need to obtain permission directly from the copyright holder. To view a copy of this licence, visit http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/. The Creative Commons Public Domain Dedication waiver (http://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/) applies to the data made available in this article, unless otherwise stated in a credit line to the data.

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Shen, Y., Li, X., Feng, X. et al. Differences in the effects of orthodontic treatment on airway-craniocervical functional environment in adult and adolescent patients with skeletal class II high-angle: a retrospective pilot study. BMC Oral Health 23, 605 (2023). https://doi.org/10.1186/s12903-023-03328-w

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1186/s12903-023-03328-w

Keywords

BMC Oral Health

ISSN: 1472-6831

Contact us