Comparative Evaluation of Nasopharyngeal Airways of Unilateral Cleft Lip and Palate Patients Using Three-Dimensional and Two-Dimensional Methods

• Published in: The Cleft palate-craniofacial journal 2012-11, Vol.49 (6), p.75-81
• Main Authors: Aras, Isil, Olmez, Sultan, Dogan, Servet
• Format: Article
• Language: English
• Subjects: Adolescent; Airway management; Case-Control Studies; Cephalometry; Cleft Lip - diagnostic imaging; Cleft Palate - diagnostic imaging; Comparative studies; Deformities; Dentistry; Female; Humans; Imaging, Three-Dimensional; Male; Maxillofacial surgery; Mouth; Nasopharynx - diagnostic imaging; Three dimensional imaging; Tomography, X-Ray Computed
• ISSN: 1055-6656; 1545-1569
• DOI: 10.1597/12-004

Aim Comparison of nasopharyngeal airway dimensions among UCLP patients and the control group. Materials and Methods Computed tomography imaging data and cephalometric films of 20 patients with UCLP and 20 controls were acquired prior to treatment. Three-dimensional (3D) reconstructions of nasal, superior, middle, and inferior pharyngeal airways were carried out from dicom data, and volumes of these compartments were calculated. Nasal width and superior, middle, and inferior nasopharyngeal areas were calculated from cephalometric films. Results The only statistically significant difference among the cleft and noncleft patients was detected in nasal volume (p < .01). Upper and middle pharyngeal airway areas were found to display significant larger areas in the noncleft group on cephalometric appraisal. Nonsignificantly larger nasal widths were measured in the cleft group. Discussion and Conclusion Evaluation of the nasopharyngeal airways of cleft and noncleft patients was done, resulting in only the nasal region showing statistically significant difference. Our results showed significantly lower nasal volume measurements of cleft patients when compared with the healthy individuals (p < .01). This inadequacy can be interpreted as an outcome of the deficiency. The controversy among results of cephalometric appraisal and 3D imaging can be associated with superimpositions, density, and contrast inadequacies and obscured landmarks. When 2D data are compared with 3D data, the former can be insufficient and therefore deceiving. Consequently, although the radiation dose of 3D imaging systems is greater, they have the advantage of superior diagnostic outputs.