Correlation between acoustic rhinometry, computed rhinomanometry and cone-beam computed tomography in mouth breathers with transverse maxillary deficiency

• Published in: Brazilian journal of otorhinolaryngology 2018-01, Vol.84 (1), p.40-50
• Main Authors: Sakai, Raquel Harumi Uejima Satto, Marson, Fernando Augusto Lima, Sakuma, Emerson Taro Inoue, Ribeiro, José Dirceu, Sakano, Eulália
• Format: Article
• Language: English
• Subjects: Average nasal resistance; Cavidade nasal; Fluxo respiratório; Minimum cross-sectional areas; Nasal cavity; Original; OTORHINOLARYNGOLOGY; Resistência nasal média; Respiratory flow; Áreas mínimas de corte transversal
• ISSN: 1808-8694; 1808-8686; 1808-8686
• DOI: 10.1016/j.bjorl.2016.10.015

To provide clinical information and diagnosis in mouth breathers with transverse maxillary deficiency with posterior crossbite, numerous exams can be performed; however, the correlation among these exams remains unclear. To evaluate the correlation between acoustic rhinometry, computed rhinomanometry, and cone-beam computed tomography in mouth breathers with transverse maxillary deficiency. A cross-sectional study was conducted in 30 mouth breathers with transverse maxillary deficiency (7–13 y.o.) patients with posterior crossbite. The examinations assessed: (i) acoustic rhinometry: nasal volumes (0–5cm and 2–5cm) and minimum cross-sectional areas 1 and 2 of nasal cavity; (ii) computed rhinomanometry: flow and average inspiratory and expiratory resistance; (iii) cone-beam computed tomography: coronal section on the head of inferior turbinate (Widths 1 and 2), middle turbinate (Widths 3 and 4) and maxilla levels (Width 5). Acoustic rhinometry and computed rhinomanometry were evaluated before and after administration of vasoconstrictor. Results were compared by Spearman's correlation and Mann–Whitney tests (α=0.05). Positive correlations were observed between: (i) flow evaluated before administration of vasoconstrictor and Width 4 (Rho=0.380) and Width 5 (Rho=0.371); (ii) Width 2 and minimum cross-sectional areas 1 evaluated before administration of vasoconstrictor (Rho=0.380); (iii) flow evaluated before administration of vasoconstrictor and nasal volumes of 0–5cm (Rho=0.421), nasal volumes of 2–5cm (Rho=0.393) and minimum cross-sectional areas 1 (Rho=0.375); (iv) Width 4 and nasal volumes of 0–5cm evaluated before administration of vasoconstrictor (Rho=0.376), nasal volumes of 2–5cm evaluated before administration of vasoconstrictor (Rho=0.376), minimum cross-sectional areas 1 evaluated before administration of vasoconstrictor (Rho=0.410) and minimum cross-sectional areas 1 after administration of vasoconstrictor (Rho=0.426); (v) Width 5 and Width 1 (Rho=0.542), Width 2 (Rho=0.411), and Width 4 (Rho=0.429). Negative correlations were observed between: (i) Width 4 and average inspiratory resistance (Rho=−0.385); (ii) average inspiratory resistance evaluated before administration of vasoconstrictor and nasal volumes of 0–5cm (Rho=−0.382), and average expiratory resistance evaluated before administration of vasoconstrictor and minimum cross-sectional areas 1 (Rho=−0.362). There were correlations between acoustic rhinometry, computed rhinomanometry, and cone-b