ORIGINAL ARTICLE

Pharyngeal airway characterization in adolescents

related to facial skeletal pattern: A preliminary
study
^ nio Carlos de Oliveira Ruellas,c
L
gia Vieira Claudino,a Claudia Trindade Mattos,b Anto
c
and Eduardo Franzotti Sant Anna
Rio de Janeiro, Brazil

Introduction: The objective of this study was to characterize the volume and the morphology of the pharyngeal
airway in adolescent subjects, relating them to their facial skeletal pattern. Methods: Fifty-four subjects who had
cone-beam computed tomography were divided into 3 groupsskeletal Class I, Class II, and Class III
according to their ANB angles. The volumes of the upper pharyngeal portion and nasopharynx, and the
volume and morphology of the lower pharyngeal portion and its subdivisions (velopharynx, oropharynx, and
hypopharynx) were assessed with software (version 11.5; Dolphin Imaging & Management Solutions,
Chatsworth, Calif). The results were compared with the Kruskal-Wallis and the Dunn multiple comparison
tests to identify intergroup differences. Correlations between variables assessed were tested by the
Spearman correlation coefcient. Correlations between the logarithms of airway volumes and the ANB angle
values were tested as continuous variables with linear regression, considering the sexes as subgroups.
Results: The minimum areas in the Class II group (112.9 6 42.9, 126.9 6 45.9, and 142.1 6 83.5 mm2)
were signicantly smaller than in Class III group (186.62 6 83.2, 234.5 6 104.9, and 231.1 6 111.4 mm2) for
the lower pharyngeal portion, the velopharynx, and the oropharynx, respectively, and signicantly smaller
than the Class I group for the velopharynx (201.8 6 94.7 mm2). The Class II group had a statistically signicant
different morphology than did the Class I and Class III groups in the velopharynx. There was a tendency to decreased airway volume with increased ANB angle in the lower pharyngeal portion, velopharynx, and oropharynx.
In the upper pharyngeal portion, nasopharynx, and hypopharynx, there seemed to be no association between
the airway volume and the skeletal pattern. Conclusions: The Class II subjects had smaller minimum
and mean areas (lower pharyngeal portion, velopharynx, and oropharynx) than did the Class III group and
signicantly less uniform velopharynx morphology than did the Class I and Class III groups. A negative correlation was observed between the ANB value and airway volume in the lower pharyngeal portion and the
velopharynx (both sexes) and in the oropharynx (just in male subjects). (Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop
2013;143:799-809)

he upper airway is a structure responsible for one

of the main vital functions in the human organismbreathing. The interest in studying the upper
airway has always been present in orthodontics, and 1

From the Department of Orthodontics, Universidade Federal do Rio de Janeiro,

Rio de Janeiro, Brazil.
a
PhD student.
b
Substitute professor.
c
Associate professor.
The authors report no commercial, proprietary, or nancial interest in the products or companies described in this article.
Reprint requests to: Eduardo Franzotti Sant Anna, Avenida Professor Rodolpho
Paulo Rocco, 325 llha do Fund~ao, Rio de Janeiro, RJ, CEP: 21941-617, Brazil;
e-mail, eduardo.franzotti@gmail.com.
Submitted, May 2012; revised and accepted, January 2013.
0889-5406/$36.00
Copyright 2013 by the American Association of Orthodontists.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.ajodo.2013.01.015

main objective is to clarify the relationship between

pharynx structures and craniofacial complex growth
and development.1-4
Obstructive processes of morphologic, physiologic, or
pathologic nature, such as hypertrophy of adenoids and
tonsils, chronic and allergic rhinitis, irritant environmental factors, infections, congenital nasal deformities,
nasal traumas, polyps, and tumors, are predisposing factors to a blocked upper airway. When that happens,
a functional imbalance results in an oral breathing pattern that can alter facial morphology and dental arch
forms, generating a malocclusion.2,5,6
Considering the functional matrix theory proposed
by Moss,7 the association of respiratory and masticatory
functions and swallowing might act on craniofacial
development.
799

Claudino et al

800

The literature is controversial when it comes to the

possible associations among respiratory function, facial
morphology, and occlusion. The ways in which variation
in the airow can inuence growth and development are
not completely elucidated. These questions remain unanswered because of methodologic limitations related
to, among other factors, the multifactorial etiology of
malocclusion, the limitations in the cephalometric
method, and the lack of longitudinal studies assessing
the airway.8,9
Many studies have assessed the relationship between
craniofacial morphology and the pharyngeal airway in
cephalometric radiographs.10-14 However, lateral
teleradiographs are limited because they reproduce
a 3-dimensional structure in a 2-dimensional way that
does not allow the assessment of cross-sectional areas
and volumes of these structures.15,16
Techniques that allow the precise diagnosis of
changes in the upper airway considering their morphology and volume are fundamental to ensure normal
development of the craniofacial complex in growing
subjects and the choice of an adequate treatment
plan.17,18
Although it might expose patients to higher levels of
radiation than isolated customary orthodontic digital radiography,19 cone-beam computed tomography (CBCT)
uses a signicantly reduced radiation dose compared
with medical computed tomography machines and is
equivalent to traditional dental imaging methods such
as a full-mouth series.20,21 CBCT has the advantage of
resulting images with good accuracy.16,18,22,23 Specic
softwares and their tools make it possible to obtain
highly reliable measurements of osseous structures and
facial characteristics, as well as to assess soft tissues in
3 dimensions, including measurements of the
oropharynx for volume, morphology, and minimum
axial area. Many studies have been developed in this
area.24-32
Guijarro-Mart
nez and Swennen33 published a systematic review concerning the CBCT analysis of the upper airway and included 46 clinically or technically
relevant articles from 382 articles from 1968 to 2010
found in PubMed (National Library of Medicine, NCBI).
The results indicate that the 3-dimensional analysis of
the upper airway by using CBCT can be accurate and reliable, although important aspects still need to be elucidated.
The aim of this study was to characterize through
CBCT and 3-dimensional image reconstruction software
the volumes of the upper pharyngeal portion and
nasopharynx, and the volume, minimum axial area,
and morphology of the lower pharyngeal portion
and its subdivisionsvelopharynx, oropharynx, and

June 2013  Vol 143  Issue 6

hypopharynxin adolescent subjects, relating them to

their facial skeletal patterns.
MATERIAL AND METHODS

This project was approved by the research ethics

committee of the Institute of Collective Health Studies
from the Universidade Federal do Rio de Janeiro in
Brazil. All patients signed a consent form allowing the
use of their orthodontic records.
A sample calculation was performed based on the
mean standard deviation from a previous study.31 A
sample size of at least 17 patients would be necessary
in each group to detect differences of 65 mm2 in the
minimum axial area and of 2500 mm3 in the oropharynx
volume, with a test power of 0.80 (a 5 0.05). The formula used was described by Pandis.34
The sample was composed of 54 CBCT scans, requested as part of the initial records needed for diagnosis
and planning of patients starting their orthodontic
treatment in the orthodontic clinics of the postgraduate
program in our school of dentistry. All CBCT scans used
so far as orthodontic records in this university were performed on 1 device (i-CAT; Imaging Sciences International, Hateld, Pa) according to a standard protocol
(120 kV, 5 mA, 13 3 17-cm eld of view, 0.4-mm voxel,
and 20-second scanning time). The CBCT scans were
made with each subject sitting in a vertical position,
and with the Frankfort horizontal plane parallel to the
ground and in maximum intercuspation.
The CBCT scans of patients in the sample were selected from the sequential initial records from the clinics.
The following inclusion criteria were used in sample selection: DICOM le, no previous orthodontic treatment
or other treatment that might interfere with the natural
course of maxillomandibular growth and development,
good health conditions, no airway pathology, craniocervical inclination between 90 and 110 (since head
posture might interfere with airway volume),35 CBCT
image including the whole fourth cervical vertebra, no
severe hyperdivergence (FMA angle, 19 -30 ), and age
from 13 to 20 years. The inclination between the palatal
plane and the sella-nasion plane was measured to
characterize the sample. To take the initial angular
measurements necessary to conrm the inclusion criteria
and distribute the subjects among the groups (ANB
and FMA angles, and cranio-cervical inclination), 2dimensional lateral cephalometric radiographs were
created (ray-sum technique) from the CBCT scans in
the software (version 11.5; Dolphin Imaging & Management Solutions, Chatsworth, Calif), and measurements
were made by an experienced operator (L.V.C.). The
subjects were then divided into 3 groups considering
the relationship between the maxilla and the mandible

American Journal of Orthodontics and Dentofacial Orthopedics

Claudino et al

Table I. Descriptive statistics of age and cephalomet-

ric characteristics of patients in all groups, classied

according to ANB angles
Class I (n 5 17) Class II (n 5 20) Class III (n 5 17)
Mean (SD)
Mean (SD)
Mean (SD)
Age (y)
15.62 (2.17)
16.83 (2.74)
16.28 (1.74)
24.51 (2.37)
25.73 (4.07)
24.05 (3.52)
FMA ( )
2.18 (0.76)
5.55 (2.00)
2.05 (2.52)
ANB ( )
6.64 (3.89)a
8.7 (3.21)a
9.83 (3.18)a
PP-SN ( )
Different superscript letters mean statistically signicant difference
(same line).
PP-SN, Angle between the palatal plane and the sella-nasion line.

(ANB angle): Class I (1 #ANB #3 ), Class II (ANB .3 ),

and Class III (ANB\1 ).31 Fewer Class I and Class III subjects met all inclusion criteria than Class II patients. To
maintain the sample size calculated and make the
groups more even, random subjects were excluded
from the Class II group using initials and sex. No numeric
parameters were considered.
The groups were divided in the following way: Class I
(17 patients, 12 female and 5 male), Class II (20 patients,
10 female and 10 male), and Class III (17 patients, 11 female and 6 male). The mean age of the sample was 16.28
years (SD, 2.30 years) and the mean FMA angle was
24.82 (SD, 3.45 ). The mean inclination between the
palatal plane and the sella-nasion plane was 8.40 (SD,
3.60 ). Specic age and cephalometric characteristics
for each group are described in Table I.
The direct measurements selected for the dimensional
assessment of the pharyngeal airway in this study were (1)
upper pharyngeal portion, nasopharynx, lower pharyngeal portion, velopharynx, oropharynx, and hypopharynx
volume; (2) lower pharyngeal portion, velopharynx, oropharynx, and hypopharynx minimum axial area; (3) lower
pharyngeal portion total length and upper length; and (4)
velopharynx, oropharynx, and hypopharynx total length.
All measurements were made with Dolphin Imaging
software. The volumes and minimum axial areas were
measured with the tool for airway volume calculation
in the 3-dimensional mode of the software in the 25
(standard) threshold values. The limits for each portion
of interest were dened in the sagittal slice, and the software automatically calculated the total volume and the
most constricted airway area (minimum axial area) in
the region previously set out.
The limits adopted for the upper pharyngeal portion
were those proposed by El and Palomo.27 The lower limit
was dened by the palatal plane, which is the line passing by the anterior nasal spine and posterior nasal spine,
extended to the pharyngeal posterior wall. The upper
limit was dened as a slice before the nasal septum
merges with the pharyngeal posterior wall (Fig 1).

801

The lower limit of the nasopharynx segment was the

palatal plane; its upper limit was dened in the sagittal
view as the line uniting the posterior nasal spine and
the So (middle point of the sella-basion line) points,18
and its posterior limit was dened in the sagittal view
as a line approximately perpendicular to the palatal
plane that intersects the So point (Fig 2).
The lower pharyngeal portions upper limit was the
palatal plane extended to the posterior pharyngeal
wall, and the lower limit was the plane parallel to the palatal plane that intersected the lower and most anterior
point in the fourth cervical vertebra (Fig 3). The location
of the minimum axial area in the lower pharyngeal portion was determined using the ratio proposed by Van
Holsbeke et al36 between the upper airway length (distance from the upper limit to the minimum axial area)
and the total airway length (Fig 3). The position ratio
can be described as follows: location 5 upper airway
length/total airway length.
The 3 segments assessed in the lower pharyngeal
portionvelopharynx, oropharynx, and hypopharynx
were delimited by 4 cross-sectional planes, constructed
with previously determined points. The upper limit of
the velopharynx was the palatal plane, and the lower
limit was a plane parallel to the palatal plane that intersected the uvula (Fig 4, A). The upper limit of the
oropharynx segment was the lower limit of velopharynx, and its lower limit was a plane parallel to the palatal plane intersecting the upper point of the epiglottis
(Fig 4, B). The upper limit of the hypopharynx was the
lower limit of the oropharynx, and its lower limit was
a plane parallel to the palatal plane intersecting the
lower and most anterior point of the fourth cervical
vertebra (Fig 4, C).
Once volume, minimum axial area, and total length
of the lower pharyngeal portion, velopharynx, oropharynx, and hypopharynx were obtained, the mean area
of each segment was calculated using the following ratio: mean area 5 volume/total airway length.
The morphologic characterizations of the lower pharyngeal portion, velopharynx, oropharynx, and hypopharynx were possible by calculation of the following
ratio for each segment: morphology 5 minimum area/
mean area.36 This ratio shows whether the area distribution along the upper airway was uniform or irregular.
Statistical analysis

All measurements were repeated in 40% of the CBCT

scans after a 2-week interval. Calibration of the operator
was tested with the intraclass correlation coefcient.
A descriptive analysis, including means and standard
deviations, was performed for all quantitative variables.
The Kolmogorov-Smirnov test was applied to assess the

American Journal of Orthodontics and Dentofacial Orthopedics

June 2013  Vol 143  Issue 6

Claudino et al

802

Fig 1. Limits of the upper pharyngeal portion: A, determination of the last axial slice before the nasal
septum fuses with the pharyngeal posterior wall; B, the reection of that slice in the sagittal plane denes the upper limit, and the palatal plane determines the lower limit.

values were tested as continuous variables using linear

regression, with the sexes as subgroups.
RESULTS

Fig 2. Nasopharynx limits: the lower limit is the palatal

plane (pp) extended to the posterior pharyngeal wall,
and the upper limit is the line uniting PNS and So (middle
point in the Ba-S line).

normality of the data. No signicant sex-related differences were found; therefore, the data were combined.
The Kruskal-Wallis test was used to verify whether there
were statistically signicant differences (P \0.05)
among the groups. The Dunn multiple comparison test
was then used to identify where these differences were.
Correlations among the variables were tested by the
Spearman correlation coefcient. The P values were adjusted for multiple comparisons. Correlations between
the logarithms of airway volumes and the ANB angle

June 2013  Vol 143  Issue 6

The intraclass correlation coefcient results were

higher than 0.95 for all variables assessed; this conrmed the operators calibration.
The Kruskal-Wallis nonparametric test was applied
for all variables, since the distribution of some variables
was not normal. Comparisons among mean values of all
groups for all dimensional variables (except for volumes)
assessed for each airway segment are given in Tables II
through V.
In the lower pharyngeal portion, the Class II group
had a signicantly smaller (P \0.007) upper length
than did the Class I group. The most constricted area
was in the middle portion (50% of the total length) in
the Class II group. The Class II group also showed significantly smaller (P \0.007) minimum airway area and
mean area than did the Class III group (Table II).
All groups showed variations in lower pharyngeal
portion morphology, characterized by a less uniform distribution of the airway area along the length of this
structure. However, no statistically signicant difference
was found (Table II).
The Class II group had signicantly smaller (P \0.01)
velopharynx minimum axial area and mean area, and
a greater morphologic variation than did the Class I
and Class III groups (Table III).
In the oropharynx segment, the Class II group showed
signicantly smaller minimum axial area and mean area
than did the Class III group (Table IV).

American Journal of Orthodontics and Dentofacial Orthopedics

Claudino et al

803

Fig 3. Lower pharyngeal portion limits and measurements: A, Upper limit, palatal plane (ANS-PNS line)
extended to the pharyngeal posterior wall, and lower limit, plane parallel to the palatal plane (pp) intersecting the lower and most anterior point in the fourth cervical vertebra (C4); the horizontal white line
represents the most constricted axial area (minimum axial area) within these limits; Ul, Upper length;
Tl, total length. B, Axial view of the minimum axial area determined by the software within these limits.

Fig 4. Limits used in the lower pharyngeal portion segments: A, velopharynx upper limit, palatal plane
(pp), and lower limit, plane parallel to the palatal plane intersecting the uvula (U); B, oropharynx upper
limit, plane parallel to the palatal plane intersecting the uvula (U), and lower limit, plane parallel to the
palatal plane intersecting the upper point in the epiglottis (EP); C, hypopharynx upper limit, plane parallel to the palatal plane intersecting the upper point in the epiglottis (EP), and lower limit, plane parallel
to the palatal plane intersecting the lower and most anterior point in the fourth cervical vertebra (C4).

No statistically signicant differences were observed

in the hypopharynx segment in any assessed measurements (Table V).
The correlation analysis between airway volumes and
the variables FMA, age, and sex, and the correlation

analysis between the palatal plane to sella-nasion and

ANB angles are shown in Table VI. No variable had a correlation with airway volumes.
The plots of the correlations between airway volumes
and ANB angle (Fig 5) showed a tendency in male

American Journal of Orthodontics and Dentofacial Orthopedics

June 2013  Vol 143  Issue 6

Claudino et al

804

Table II. Intergroup comparison of LPP dimensional measurements and morphology

LPP total length (mm)

LPP upper length (mm)
LPP minimum area (mm2)
LPP mean area (mm2)
Minimum area location (Ul/Tl)
LPP morphology (Amin/Amean)

Class I (n 5 17)
Mean (SD)
66.7 (7.0)a
50.8 (14.5)a
132.45 (48.5)a,b
205.38 (68.7)a,b
0.7 (0.2)a
0.5 (0.1)a

Class II (n 5 20)
Mean (SD)
67.0 (7.8)a
31.30 (15.2)b
112.9 (42.9)a
211.8 (52.9)a
0.5 (0.2)b
0.5 (0.1)a

Class III (n 5 17)

Mean (SD)
70.22 (5.4)a
46.81 (17.65)a,b
186.62 (83.2)b
299.93 (93.16)b
0.6 (0.3)a,b
0.6 (0.1)a

Different superscript letters mean statistically signicant difference (same line).

LPP, Lower pharyngeal portion; Ul, upper airway length; Tl, total airway length; Amin/Amean, minimum area/mean area.

Table III. Intergroup comparison of VP dimensional measurements and morphology

VP length (mm)
VP minimum area (mm2)
VP mean area (mm2)
VP morphology (Amin/Amean)

Class I (n 5 17)
Mean (SD)
29.5 (4.9)a
201.8 (94.7)a
291.0 (93.6)a
0.7 (0.1)a

Class II (n 5 20)
Mean (SD)
28.7 (4.1)a
126.9 (45.9)b
218.8 (87.8)b
0.6 (0.1)b

Class III (n 5 17)

Mean (SD)
31.5 (3.7)a
234.5 (104.9)a
327.9 (112.0)a
0.7 (0.2)a

Different superscript letters mean statistically signicant difference (same line).

VP, Velopharynx; Amin/Amean, minimum area/mean area.

Table IV. Intergroup comparison of OP dimensional measurements and morphology

OP length (mm)
OP minimum area (mm2)
OP mean area (mm2)
OP morphology (Amin/Amean)

Class I (n 5 17)
Mean (SD)
18.56 (3.9)a
160.2 (62.6)a,b
210.9 (86.9)a,b
0.76 (0.1)a

Class II (n 5 20)
Mean (SD)
14.73 (5.4)a
142.1 (83.5)a
195.1 (85.3)a
0.7 (0.1)a

Class III (n 5 17)

Mean (SD)
16.0 (5.8)a
231.1 (111.4)b
283.4 (124.1)b
0.8 (0.1)a

Different superscript letters mean statistically signicant difference (same line).

OP, Oropharynx; Amin/Amean, minimum area/mean area.

subjects toward greater volumes than in females, except

for the nasopharynx, where there was no difference. In
the lower pharyngeal portion, velopharynx, and oropharynx, the linear regression coefcient (R2) was more
consistent; the greater the ANB angle, the smaller the
airway volume. In the oropharynx, this was signicant
only in male subjects. In the upper pharyngeal portion,
nasopharynx, and hypopharynx, there seemed to be no
association between airway volume and skeletal pattern.
DISCUSSION

The main objective of this study was to assess the volumes of the upper pharyngeal portion and nasopharynx
and the volumes, the minimum axial areas, and the morphology of the lower pharyngeal portion and its segments (velopharynx, oropharynx, and hypopharynx)
using CBCT scans of 13- to 20-year-old subjects divided
into Class I, Class II, and Class III groups according to
their ANB angles.

June 2013  Vol 143  Issue 6

The Dolphin Imaging software we used is user

friendly and provides quick upper airway segmentationgood segmentation sensitivity that can be checked
in 2-dimensional slices (axial, coronal, and sagittal)and
minimum cross-sectional area analysis. It is considerably
more accurate than or similar to other softwares in upper
airway assessments.27,37 Its disadvantages include cost,
lack of tools to adjust or correct the segmentation in
2-dimensional slices, and threshold interval units that
are not comparable with other imaging softwares.37
Many studies have been performed to assess the relationship between upper airway and dentomaxillofacial
morphology using CBCT.25,26,30,31,38 Nevertheless,
most of these studies assessed only airway segments
that do not necessarily represent the complete upper
portion of this complex structure. The assessment of
the entire upper airway is necessary to establish
a correct diagnosis.28 We were concerned with determination of the anatomic limits of the upper airway and its

American Journal of Orthodontics and Dentofacial Orthopedics

Claudino et al

805

Table V. Intergroup comparison of HP dimensional measurements and morphology

Class I (n 5 17)
Mean (SD)
19.2 (5.4)a
147.4 (51.9)a
224.1 (59.2)a
0.6 (0.1)a

HP length (mm)
HP minimum area (mm2)
HP mean area (mm2)
HP morphology (Amin/Amean)

Class II (n 5 20)
Mean (SD)
21.8 (5.1)a
149.6 (53.0)a
235.4 (69.9)a
0.6 (0.1)a

Classs III (n 5 17)

Mean (SD)
22.3 (5.2)a
206.5 (93.0)a
283.9 (80.7)a
0.7 (0.1)a

Different superscript letters mean statistically signicant difference (same line).

HP, Hypopharynx; Amin/Amean, minimum area/mean area.

Table VI. Spearman correlation coefcients between

airway volumes and the variables FMA, age, and sex,

and between the palatal plane to sella-nasion and
ANB angles
PP-SN
UPP volume
LPP volume
NP volume
VP volume
OP volume
HP volume

ANB
0.045
-

FMA
0.151
0.050
0.107
0.011
0.183
0.023

Age
0.197
0.229
0.356
0.185
0.052
0.162

Sex*
0.077
0.299
0.094
0.260
0.404
0.178

P \0.002 is statistically signicant (adjusted for multiple comparisons).

PP-SN, Angle between the palatal plane and the sella-nasion line;
UPP, upper pharyngeal portion; LPP, lower pharyngeal portion;
NP, nasopharynx; VP, velopharynx; OP, oropharynx; HP, hypopharynx.
*Number 1 was adopted for the male sex and number 2 for the female sex.

subdivisions in segments that could be more susceptible

to morphologic changes in Class I, Class II, and Class III
subjects. Additionally, the assessment of the whole upper airway, represented by the lower pharyngeal portion,
was considered necessary. The lower pharyngeal portion
limits used in this study are wider than those frequently
used and described in the literature.
The sample division into Class I, Class II, and Class III
skeletal patterns according to the ANB angle was chosen
because this is one of the most used criteria in the determination of the anteroposterior relationship between
the maxilla and the mandible.14,28,31,39 Nevertheless,
this angle might be inuenced by the anteroposterior
position of nasion relative to Points A and B, among
other factors, and some authors have suggested that
the diagnosis of such discrepancies must be based on
more than 1 anteroposterior appraisal.28,40-42 Despite
its limitation, the ANB angle was used alone because
the use of 2 criteria to eliminate such limitations is not
always coincident. Many studies have demonstrated
negative correlations between the oropharynx volume
and the ANB angle.31,43,44 Our study showed

signicant negative correlations between the lower

pharyngeal portion and the velopharynx volumes and
the ANB angle (Fig 5).
Our sample included subjects with an FMA angle
from 19 to 30 . Therefore, no subject with severe mandibular hypodivergency or hyperdivergency was included in the sample, because this aspect can inuence
airway dimensions, as described by Joseph et al.45 These
authors observed greater pharyngeal anteroposterior
narrowing in hyperdivergent subjects at the levels of
the hard palate and the oropharynx, the soft-palate
tip, and the mandible. Ucar and Uysal14 reached similar
conclusions when comparing craniofacial dimensions
and airway and tongue width in healthy Class I subjects
with different vertical growth patterns. They observed
smaller nasopharynx airway dimensions in hyperdivergent subjects compared with hypodivergent and normodivergent subjects. In our study, no correlation was
found between airway volume and FMA angle (Table
VI); this is probably because subjects with a severe divergence were eliminated from the sample. These ndings
agree with the results of El and Palomo31 in normodivergent subjects (FMA angle, 19 -31 ). No correlation was
observed between the inclination of the palatal plane
and the ANB angle (Table VI).
The age range in this study was selected to observe
airway differences in growing adolescents with different
skeletal patterns. According to Schendel et al,17 airway
dimensions increase until age 20 years; after this, moderate stability is observed. No statistically signicant differences were observed in the upper pharyngeal portion
and the nasopharynx volume among our groups. Nevertheless, a slight tendency of increase was observed with
an increase of ANB angles (Fig 5, A and B). These results
might be explained by the difculty in the assessment of
the upper pharyngeal portion volume in areas where nasal conchae presented a more complex anatomy. This
difculty was also reported by El and Palomo.31 However, they did not nd a statistically signicant smaller
volume in this region in their Class II subjects.
Some studies have demonstrated that the parameters
used to determine pharyngeal airway dimensions, such

American Journal of Orthodontics and Dentofacial Orthopedics

June 2013  Vol 143  Issue 6

Claudino et al

806

Fig 5. Plots showing the linear regression analyses between the logarithms of airway volume and the
ANB angle values tested as continuous variables, with the sexes as subgroups. The blue circles represent males, and the green circles represent females. The black line represents the mean correlation of
the entire sample. The blue and green lines represent the mean correlations for male and female subjects, respectively. Segments analyzed: A, upper pharyngeal portion; B, nasopharynx; C, lower pharyngeal portion; D, velopharynx; E, oropharynx; F, hypopharynx. *P \0.05; **P \0.01; ***P \0.001.

June 2013  Vol 143  Issue 6

American Journal of Orthodontics and Dentofacial Orthopedics

Claudino et al

as volume, minimum cross-sectional area, length, and

form, are correlated with obstructive sleep apnea syndrome and its gravity.46-49 The probability of its
development increases with minimum cross-sectional
area narrowing, which is considered severe when it is
smaller than 52 mm2, intermediate when it is between
52 and 110 mm2, and less severe if it is above 110
mm2.50 Our Class II subjects had signicantly smaller
lower pharyngeal portions, velopharynx and oropharynx
minimum axial areas and mean areas than did the Class
III group, and a mean lower pharyngeal portion minimum axial area of 112.9 mm2. One subject in the Class
II group even had a minimum axial area smaller than
52 mm2, which is considered severe. This nding led to
the conclusion that Class II subjects are more susceptible
to the development of obstructive sleep apnea syndrome
than are patients with different skeletal patterns.
Additionally, studies show that most obstructive
sleep apnea subjects airway constriction occurs at the
level of the oropharynx, near the occlusal plane.36,51 In
this study, the Class II group had smaller minimum
axial areas, which were located in the oropharynx
segment.
The upper airway morphology is also described in the
literature as a parameter that can predict the chance of
obstructions developing in these structures.36,46 In our
study, the morphology was characterized by the ratio
between the minimum axial area and the mean axial
area, and it was considered more irregular if the value
obtained from the ratio was lower. When this ratio in
the lower pharyngeal portion was compared among
the groups, all groups had irregularities in airway
morphology as shown by the morphology values
(Table II), and no statistically signicant difference was
found among the groups. Nevertheless, the velopharynx
segment was more sensitive to morphologic changes,
and the Class II group had a less uniform area distribution compared with the Class I and Class III groups
(Table III).
Another fact from this study was that subjects with
higher ANB values had smaller lower pharyngeal portions and velopharynx volumes and velopharynx minimum axial areas compared with the other groups.
Alves et al39 reached similar conclusions when evaluating the dimensions of the pharyngeal airway space in
50 awake, upright children with different anteroposterior skeletal patterns using CBTC. The patients were divided into 2 groups according to their ANB angles
(group I, 2 # ANB # 5 ; group II, ANB . 5 ). Those authors concluded that the pharyngeal airway space was
statistically larger in group I than in group II, indicating
that the dimensions of the pharyngeal airway space are
affected by different anteroposterior skeletal patterns.

807

Additionally, our results show that when a negative

correlation was found between airway volume and
ANB angle (lower pharyngeal portion and velopharynx),
a difference between the sexes was notable, although
this difference was not enough to trigger a signicant
correlation between airway volume and sex. Male subjects had greater airway volumes than did females; this
is similar to the results of Shigeta et al,24 who found
larger airway volumes in men than in women. When
we considered the whole lower pharyngeal portion,
this difference seemed to decrease with higher ANB
values, which meant that men and women with severe
skeletal Class II problems have no great differences in
lower pharyngeal portion volumes. Specically in the velopharynx segment, the difference between the sexes
persisted no matter what the ANB value.
Therefore, orthodontists must be aware that specic
dimensional characteristics such as a greater constriction
might be associated with the skeletal pattern. Dimensional airway assessments of the upper airway that include 3- and 2-dimensional measurements such as
those we used in this study are relevant information
for the orthodontic diagnosis and treatment plan. Considering this information, an orthodontist must dene
the best treatment for each patient, avoiding treatments
that could compromise airway dimensions in those who
are already prone to have smaller dimensions in this
structure.
These ndings should be considered with caution,
since this was a preliminary study. The small sample
size did not allow an adequate statistical appreciation
of the differences between the sexes. Based on these results, we intend to evaluate a larger sample and to adopt
the lower limit of the oropharynx, since the hypopharynx
showed no differences between the groups for any variable. That will simplify sample selection, since many patients were excluded from this study because they did
not have the lower limit adopted (fourth cervical vertebra) in the tomographic image.
The comparison between Class I and Class III subjects
showed similar airway dimensions, conrmed by the fact
that no statistically signicant difference was found in
any measurement between these groups. The Class II
group, however, had statistically signicant smaller dimensions in many segments compared with the other
2 groups, especially the Class III group; this was similar
to the ndings of El and Palomo.31
Longitudinal studies of airway changes in subjects
with different skeletal patterns in specic craniofacial
growth and development periods should be performed
to elucidate detailed knowledge on the relationship between upper airway morphology and function and craniomaxillofacial characteristics.

American Journal of Orthodontics and Dentofacial Orthopedics

June 2013  Vol 143  Issue 6

Claudino et al

808

CONCLUSIONS

Based on the results from this study, the following

conclusions can be inferred.
1.

2.
3.

4.

5.

Class II subjects have smaller minimum and mean

areas in the lower pharyngeal portion, and the velopharynx and oropharynx segments than do Class III
subjects.
No dimensional differences were observed among
the groups in the hypopharynx segment.
The velopharynx segment was more sensitive to airway morphologic changes, and the Class II group
had the greatest irregularity in this region.
No statistically signicant difference in airway dimensions was observed between the Class I and
Class III groups.
A negative correlation was observed between ANB
value and airway volume in the lower pharyngeal
portion and the velopharynx (both sexes) and in
the oropharynx only in male subjects.

REFERENCES
1. Linder-Aronson S. Respiratory function in relation to facial morphology and the dentition. Br J Orthod 1979;6:59-71.
2. Rubin RM. The orthodontists responsibility in preventing facial
deformity. In: McNamara JA Jr, editor. Naso-respiratory function
and craniofacial growth. Monograph 9. Craniofacial Growth Series.
Ann Arbor: Center for Human Growth and Development; University of Michigan; 1979.
3. McNamara JA Jr. Inuence of respiratory pattern on craniofacial
growth. Angle Orthod 1981;51:269-300.
4. Kluemper GT, Vig PS, Vig KW. Nasorespiratory characteristics and
craniofacial morphology. Eur J Orthod 1995;17:491-5.
5. Diamond O. Tonsils and adenoids: why the dilemma? Am J Orthod
1980;78:495-503.
6. Bresolin D, Shapiro PA, Shapiro GG, Chapko MK, Dassel S. Mouth
breathing in allergic children: its relationship to dentofacial development. Am J Orthod 1983;83:334-40.
7. Moss-Salentijn L, Melvin L. Moss and the functional matrix. J Dent
Res 1997;76:1814-7.
8. Shapiro PA. Effects of nasal obstruction on facial development. J
Allergy Clin Immunol 1988;81:967-71.
9. Moyers RE. Ortodontia. 4th ed. Rio de Janeiro, Brazil: Guanabara
Koogan; 1991.
10. Abu Allhaija ES, Al-Khateeb SN. Uvulo-glosso-pharyngeal dimensions in different anteroposterior skeletal patterns. Angle Orthod
2005;75:1012-8.
11. 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.
12. Muto T, Yamazaki A, Takeda S, Sato Y. Accuracy of predicting
the pharyngeal airway space on the cephalogram after mandibular setback surgery. J Oral Maxillofac Surg 2008;66:
1099-103.
13. Zhong Z, Tang Z, Gao X, Zeng XL. A comparison study of upper
airway among different skeletal craniofacial patterns in nonsnoring Chinese children. Angle Orthod 2010;80:267-74.

June 2013  Vol 143  Issue 6

14. Ucar FI, Uysal T. Orofacial airway dimensions in subjects with Class
I malocclusion and different growth patterns. Angle Orthod 2011;
81:460-8.
15. Montgomery WM, Vig PS, Staab EV, Matteson SR. Computed tomography: a three-dimensional study of the nasal airway. Am J Orthod 1979;76:363-75.
16. Aboudara C, Nielsen I, Huang JC, Maki K, Miller AJ, Hatcher D.
Comparison of airway space with conventional lateral headlms
and 3-dimensional reconstruction from cone-beam computed tomography. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop 2009;135:468-79.
17. Schendel SA, Jacobson R, Khalessi S. Airway growth and development: a computerized 3-dimensional analysis. J Oral Maxillofac
Surg 2012;70:2174-83.
18. Lenza MG, Lenza MM, Dalstra M, Melsen B, Cattaneo PM. An analysis of different approaches to the assessment of upper airway
morphology: a CBCT study. Orthod Craniofac Res 2010;13:
96-105.
19. Gr
unheid T, Kokbeck Schieck JR, Pliska BT, Ahmad M, Larson BE.
Dosimetry of a cone-beam computed tomography machine compared with a digital x-ray machine in orthodontic imaging. Am J
Orthod Dentofacial Orthop 2012;141:436-43.
20. Mah JK, Danforth RA, Bumann A, Hatcher D. Radiation absorbed
in maxillofacial imaging with a new dental computed tomography
device. Oral Surg Oral Med Oral Pathol Oral Radiol Endod 2003;96:
508-13.
21. Loubele M, Bogaerts R, Van Dijck E, Pauwels R, Vanheusden S,
Suetens P, et al. Comparison between effective radiation dose of
CBCT and MSCT scanners for dentomaxillofacial applications.
Eur J Radiol 2009;71:461-8.
22. Kumar V, Ludlow JB, Mol A, Cevidanes L. Comparison of conventional and cone beam CT synthesized cephalograms. Dentomaxillofac Radiol 2007;36:263-9.
23. Hechler LS. Cone-beam CT: applications in orthodontics. Dent Clin
North Am 2008;52:809-23.
24. Shigeta Y, Ogawa T, Venturin J, Nguyen M, Clark GT, Enciso R.
Gender- and age-based differences in computerized tomographic
measurements of the orophaynx. Oral Surg Oral Med Oral Pathol
Oral Radiol Endod 2008;106:563-70.
25. Grauer D, Cevidanes LS, Styner MA, Ackerman JL, Proft WR. Pharyngeal airway volume and shape from cone-beam computed tomography: relationship to facial morphology. Am J Orthod
Dentofacial Orthop 2009;136:805-14.
26. Iwasaki T, Hayasaki H, Takemoto Y, Kanomi R, Yamasaki Y. Oropharyngeal airway in children with Class III malocclusion evaluated
by cone-beam computed tomography. Am J Orthod Dentofacial
Orthop 2009;136:318.e1-9; discussion 318-9.
27. El H, Palomo JM. Measuring the airway in 3 dimensions: a reliability and accuracy study. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop 2010;
137(Supp):S50.e1-9; discussion S50-2.
28. Kim YJ, Hong JS, Hwang YI, Park YH. Three-dimensional analysis
of pharyngeal airway in preadolescent children with different anteroposterior skeletal patterns. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop
2010;137:306.e1-11; discussion 306-7.
29. Zinsly SR, Moraes LC, Moura P, Ursi W. Avaliac~ao do espaco a
ereo
far
ngeo por meio da tomograa computadorizada de feixe
c^
onico. Dent Press J Orthod 2010;15:150-8.
30. Valiathan M, El H, Hans MG, Palomo MJ. Effects of extraction versus non-extraction treatment on oropharyngeal airway volume.
Angle Orthod 2010;80:1068-74.
31. El H, Palomo JM. Airway volume for different dentofacial skeletal
patterns. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop 2011;139:511-21.
32. Alves M Jr, Baratieri C, Nojima LI, Nojima MC, Ruellas AC. Threedimensional assessment of pharyngeal airway in nasal- and

American Journal of Orthodontics and Dentofacial Orthopedics

Claudino et al

33.

34.
35.

36.

37.

38.

39.

40.
41.
42.

mouth-breathing children. Int J Pediatr Otorhinolaryngol 2011;

75:1195-9.
Guijarro-Mart
nez R, Swennen GR. Cone-beam computerized tomography imaging and analysis of the upper airway: a systematic
review of the literature. Int J Oral Maxillofac Surg 2011;40:
1227-37.
Pandis A. Sample calculations for comparison of 2 means. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop 2012;141:519-21.
Muto T, Takeda S, Kanazawa M, Yamazaki A, Fujiwara Y,
Mizoguchi I. The effect of head posture on the pharyngeal airway
space (PAS). Int J Oral Maxillofac Surg 2002;31:579-83.
Van Holsbeke C, De Backer J, Vos W, Verdonck P, Van Ransbeeck P,
Claessens T, et al. Anatomical and functional changes in the upper
airways of sleep apnea patients due to mandibular repositioning:
a large scale study. J Biomech 2011;44:442-9.
Weissheimer A, Menezes LM, Sameshima GT, Enciso R, Pham J,
Grauer D. Imaging software accuracy for 3-dimensional analysis
of the upper airway. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop 2012;142:
801-13.
Iwasaki T, Saitoh I, Takemoto Y, Inada E, Kanomi R, Hayasaki H,
et al. Evaluation of upper airway obstruction in Class II children
with uid-mechanical simulation. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop
2011;139:135-45.
Alves M Jr, Franzotti ES, Baratieri C, Nunes LK, Nojima LI,
Ruellas AC. Evaluation of pharyngeal airway space amongst different skeletal patterns. Int J Oral Maxillofac Surg 2012;23:1-6.
Hussels W, Nanda RS. Analysis of factors affecting angle ANB. Am
J Orthod 1984;85:411-23.
Jacobson A. The Wits appraisal of jaw disharmony. Am J Orthod
1975;67:125-38.
Ferrario VF, Sforza C, Miani A Jr, Tartaglia GM. The use of linear
and angular measurements of maxillo-mandibular anteroposterior
discrepancies. Clin Orthod Res 1999;2:34-41.

809

43. Ceylan I, Oktay H. A study on the pharyngeal size in different

skeletal patterns. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop 1995;108:
69-75.
44. Hong JS, Park YH, Kim YJ, Hong SM, Oh KM. Three-dimensional
changes in pharyngeal airway in skeletal Class III patients undergoing orthognathic surgery. J Oral Maxillofac Surg 2011;69:401-8.
45. Joseph AA, Elbaum J, Cisneros GJ, Eisig SB. A cephalometric comparative study of the soft tissue airway dimensions in persons with
hyperdivergent and normodivergent facial patterns. J Oral Maxillofac Surg 1998;56:135-40.
46. Enciso R, Nguyen M, Shigeta Y, Ogawa T, Clark GT. Comparison of
cone-beam CT parameters and sleep questionnaires in sleep apnea
patients and control subjects. Oral Surg Oral Med Oral Pathol Oral
Radiol Endod 2010;109:285-93.
47. Abramson Z, Susarla S, August M, Troulis M, Kaban L. Three-dimensional computed tomographic analysis of airway anatomy in
patients with obstructive sleep apnea. J Oral Maxillofac Surg
2010;68:354-62.
48. Walsh JH, Leigh MS, Paduch A, Maddison KJ, Philippe DL,
Armstrong JJ, et al. Evaluation of pharyngeal shape and size using
anatomical optical coherence tomography in individuals with and
without obstructive sleep apnoea. J Sleep Res 2008;17:230-8.
49. 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;40:2207-13.
50. Ogawa T, Enciso R, Shintaku WH, Clark GT. Evaluation of crosssection airway conguration of obstructive sleep apnea. Oral
Surg Oral Med Oral Pathol Oral Radiol Endod 2007;103:102-8.
51. Lowe AA, Gionhaku N, Takeuchi K, Fleetham JA. Three-dimensional CT reconstructions of tongue and airway in adult subjects
with obstructive sleep apnea. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop
1986;90:364-74.

American Journal of Orthodontics and Dentofacial Orthopedics

June 2013  Vol 143  Issue 6