Loading…

Assessment of maximal inspiratory and expiratory pressures in skeletal Class II patients with different growth patterns

To evaluate maximal inspiratory (MIP) and expiratory (MEP) pressures, which are reflective of respiratory muscle strength, in skeletal Class II patients with different growth patterns (horizontal, average, and vertical) and to correlate those with airway dimension. Patients with a Class II skeletal...

Full description

Saved in:
Bibliographic Details
Published in:The Angle orthodontist 2024-05, Vol.94 (3), p.328-335
Main Authors: Rangarajan, Hita, Ayub, Irfan Ismail, Padmanabhan, Sridevi
Format: Article
Language:English
Subjects:
Citations: Items that this one cites
Online Access:Get full text
Tags: Add Tag
No Tags, Be the first to tag this record!
Description
Summary:To evaluate maximal inspiratory (MIP) and expiratory (MEP) pressures, which are reflective of respiratory muscle strength, in skeletal Class II patients with different growth patterns (horizontal, average, and vertical) and to correlate those with airway dimension. Patients with a Class II skeletal base seeking orthodontic treatment were assigned to the following groups: average, horizontal, and vertical growth pattern. The control group (n = 14) comprised patients with a Class I skeletal base and average growth pattern. Airway dimensions were obtained using cone-beam computed tomography scans, and a spirometer with a pressure transducer was used for assessment of MIP and MEP. Routine spirometry for assessment of lung function was also performed. No significant differences were found in maximal inspiratory and expiratory pressures for the study groups in comparison with the control group. Class I patients had significantly greater oropharyngeal and nasopharyngeal airway volumes compared with the study groups. No significant difference in minimal cross-section area of the airway was observed among groups. A weak positive correlation between maximal inspiratory pressure and airway volume was observed. Although Class I patients displayed significantly greater oropharyngeal and nasopharyngeal airway volumes, there was no significant difference in respiratory muscle strength or airway function between Class II patients with different growth patterns and the Class I control group. The findings underscore the significance of exploring factors beyond craniofacial growth patterns that may contribute to sleep-related breathing disorders.
ISSN:0003-3219
1945-7103
DOI:10.2319/071723-496.1