Evaluation of Upper Airway Width and Facial Height Cephalometric Parameters in Adult Caucasians with Skeletal Class I and Class III Malocclusion
Abstract
:1. Introduction
Aim and Objectives
2. Materials and Methods
2.1. Study Protocol
2.2. Statistical Analysis
3. Results
3.1. Reliability of Measurements
3.2. Comparison Between Groups
3.3. Correlation Coefficients
- ▪
- Strong positive correlations:
- —
- FMA and NL–ML (rho = 0.814, p < 0.001);
- —
- TAFH and TPFH (r = 0.783, p < 0.001).
- ▪
- Moderate positive correlations:
- —
- Y–FH with FMA (rho = 0.630, p < 0.001), NL–ML (r = 0.542, p < 0.001), TAFH (r = 0.453, p = 0.001) and LAFH (r = 0.501, p < 0.001);
- —
- NL–ML and LAFH (r = 0.523, p < 0.001);
- —
- TPFH with UAFH (r = 0.468, p = 0.001) and LAFH (r = 0.694, p < 0.001);
- —
- PNSp–Ad with UPAW (rho = 0.404, p = 0.004) and MPAW (rho = 0.447, p = 0.001);
- —
- LPAW and MPAW (r = 0.504, p < 0.001).
- ▪
- Moderate negative correlations:
- —
- FMA and TPFH/TAFH (rho = −0.690, p < 0.001);
- —
- NL–ML with UAFH (r = −0.429, p = 0.002) and TPFH/TAFH (r = −0.615, p < 0.001);
- —
- Y–FH and Ba–S–PNS (r = −0.518, p < 0.001).
- ▪
- Weak positive correlations:
- —
- FMA and LAFH (rho = 0.319, p = 0.024);
- —
- NL–ML with TAFH (r = 0.323, p = 0.022) and MPAW (r = −0.291, p = 0.040);
- —
- Ba–S–PNS and UPAW (r = 0.336, p = 0.017).
- ▪
- Weak negative correlations:
- —
- FMA and TPFH (rho = −0.293, p = 0.039);
- —
- Ba–S–PNS with FMA (rho = −0.336, p = 0.017), TAFH (r = −0.381, p = 0.006), LAFH (r = −0.390, p = 0.005) and TPFH (r = −0.382, p = 0.006).
- ▪
- Strong positive correlation:
- —
- FMA and NL–ML (r = 0.792, p < 0.001).
- ▪
- Strong negative correlation:
- —
- TPFH/TAFH and NL–ML (r = −0.700, p < 0.001).
- ▪
- Moderate positive correlations:
- —
- NL–ML and LAFH (r = 0.481, p < 0.001);
- —
- Y–FH with FMA (r = 0.601, p < 0.001), TAFH (r = 0.441, p = 0.001) and LAFH (r = 0.517, p < 0.001);
- —
- Ba–S–PNS and UPAW (r = 0.411, p = 0.003);
- —
- TPFH with TAFH (r = 0.651, p < 0.001), UAFH (r = 0.530, p < 0.001) and LAFH (r = 0.541, p < 0.001);
- —
- PNSp–Ad with UPAW (r = 0.590, p < 0.001) and MPAW (r = 0.422, p = 0.002);
- —
- LPAW and MPAW (r = 0.604, p < 0.001).
- ▪
- Moderate negative correlations:
- —
- FMA and TPFH/TAFH (r = −0.697, p < 0.001);
- —
- Ba–S–PNS with TAFH (r = −0.436, p = 0.002) and TPFH (r = −0.528, p < 0.001).
- ▪
- Weak positive correlations:
- —
- FMA with TAFH (r = 0.316, p = 0.025) and LAFH (r = 0.388, p = 0.005);
- —
- NL–ML with Y–FH (r = 0.361, p = 0.010) and TAFH (r = 0.299, p = 0.035);
- —
- UAFH and LAFH (r = 0.332, p = 0.018).
- ▪
- Weak negative correlations:
- —
- FMA and TPFH (r = −0.299, p = 0.035);
- —
- NL–ML and TPFH (r = −0.315, p = 0.026);
- —
- Ba–S–PNS with Y–FH (r = −0.332, p = 0.018), UAFH (r = −0.330, p = 0.019) and LAFH (r = −0.379, p = 0.007);
- —
- UPAW with TAFH (r = −0.359, p = 0.010) and LAFH (r = −0.387, p = 0.006).
4. Discussion
5. Conclusions
Author Contributions
Funding
Institutional Review Board Statement
Informed Consent Statement
Data Availability Statement
Conflicts of Interest
References
- Chen, M.; Feng, Z.C.; Liu, X.; Li, Z.M.; Cai, B.; Wang, D.W. Impact of Malocclusion on Oral Health-Related Quality of Life in Young Adults. Angle Orthod. 2015, 85, 986–991. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Krishnamurthy, S.; Shivamurthy, P.G.; Sagarkar, R.; Sabrish, S.; Bhaduri, N. Quality of Life Before and After Orthodontic Treatment in Adult Patients with Malocclusion: A Quasi-Experimental Study. J. Clin. Diagn. Res. 2022, 16, ZC05–ZC08. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Ahmed, M.; Shaikh, A.; Fida, M.; Karachi, P. Diagnostic Validity of Different Cephalometric Analyses for Assessment of the Sagittal Skeletal Pattern. Dent. Press. J. Orthod. 2018, 23, 75–81. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Azeez, S.M.; Khalid, R.F. Evaluating Diagnostic Validity of Various Sagittal Cephalometric Parameters (a Comparative Retrospective Study). Sulaimani Dent. J. 2022, 9, 39–44. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Naini, F.B.; Donaldson, A.N.A.; McDonald, F.; Cobourne, M.T. How Does Variation in Lower Anterior Face Height Influence Perceived Attractiveness? A Quantitative Investigation. J. Orthod. 2013, 40, 206–217. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Mack, M.R. Vertical Dimension: A Dynamic Concept Based on Facial Form and Oropharyngeal Function. J. Prosthet. Dent. 1991, 66, 478–485. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Johnston, D.J.; Hunt, O.; Johnston, C.D.; Burden, D.J.; Stevenson, M.; Hepper, P. The Influence of Lower Face Vertical Proportion on Facial Attractiveness. Eur. J. Orthod. 2005, 27, 349–354. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Yadav, R.; Dutta, K.; Gosain, N.; Yadav, A.K.; Yadav, N.; Singh, K.K. Vertical Proportion of the Face: A Cephalometric Study. Orthod. J. Nepal 2021, 11, 24–28. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- De Novaes Benedicto, E.; Kairalla, S.A.; Oliveira, G.M.S.; Junior, L.R.M.; Rosário, H.D.; Paranhos, L.R. Determination of Vertical Characteristics with Different Cephalometric Measurements. Eur. J. Dent. 2016, 10, 116–120. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Maskey, S.; Shrestha, R. Cephalometric Approach to Vertical Facial Height. Orthod. J. Nepal 2019, 9, 54–58. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Diwakar, R.; Kochhar, A.S.; Gupta, H.; Kaur, H.; Sidhu, M.S.; Skountrianos, H.; Singh, G.; Tepedino, M. Effect of Craniofacial Morphology on Pharyngeal Airway Volume Measured Using Cone-Beam Computed Tomography (CBCT)—A Retrospective Pilot Study. Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health 2021, 18, 5040. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Swathi, K.; Maragathavalli, G. Cephalometric Assessment of the Width of Pharyngeal Airway Space and Correlation with Skeletal Malocclusion- A Retrospective Study. J. Pharm. Sci. Res. 2019, 11, 2263–2266. [Google Scholar]
- Celikoglu, M.; Bayram, M.; Sekerci, A.E.; Buyuk, S.K.; Toy, E. Comparison of Pharyngeal Airway Volume among Different Vertical Skeletal Patterns: A Cone-Beam Computed Tomography Study. Angle Orthod. 2014, 84, 782–787. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Rajkumar, B.; Parameswaran, R.; Sanjana, M.; Boovaraghavan, S.; Vijayalakshmi, D. Evaluation of Pharyngeal Airway Volume Three-Dimensionally in Various Sagittal Skeletal Patterns-Systematic Review. Indian J. Dent. Res. 2023, 34, 209–215. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Hong, J.S.; Oh, K.M.; Kim, B.R.; Kim, Y.J.; Park, Y.H. Three-Dimensional Analysis of Pharyngeal Airway Volume in Adults with Anterior Position of the Mandible. Am. J. Orthod. Dentofac. Orthop. 2011, 140, e161–e169. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Lopatienė, K.; Dabkutė, A.; Juškevičiūtė, V. Vertical and Sagittal Morphology of the Facial Skeleton and the Pharyngeal Airway. Stomatologija 2016, 18, 21–25. [Google Scholar]
- Tseng, Y.C.; Tsai, F.C.; Chou, S.T.; Hsu, C.Y.; Cheng, J.H.; Chen, C.M. Evaluation of Pharyngeal Airway Volume for Different Dentofacial Skeletal Patterns Using Cone-Beam Computed Tomography. J. Dent. Sci. 2021, 16, 51–57. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Zheng, Z.H.; Yamaguchi, T.; Kurihara, A.; Li, H.F.; Maki, K. Three-Dimensional Evaluation of Upper Airway in Patients with Different Anteroposterior Skeletal Patterns. Orthod. Craniofac. Res. 2014, 17, 38–48. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- De Nordenflycht, D.; Corona, T.; Figueroa, A. Three-Dimensional Assessment of Upper Airway in Class III Patients with Different Facial Patterns. J. Clin. Exp. Dent. 2023, 15, e821. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Golshah, A.; Jalilian, T.H.; Nikkerdar, N. Pharyngeal Airway Dimensions in Iranian Female Young Adults with Different Skeletal Patterns Using Cone-Beam Computed Tomography. J. Orthod. Sci. 2023, 12, 4. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Ceylan, I.; Oktay, H. A Study on the Pharyngeal Size in Different Skeletal Patterns. Am. J. Orthod. Dentofac. Orthop. 1995, 108, 69–75. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Hwang, Y.I.; Lee, K.H.; Lee, K.J.; Kim, S.C.; Cho, H.J.; Cheon, S.H.; Park, Y.H. Effect of Airway and Tongue in Facial Morphology of Prepubertal Class I, II Children. Korean J. Orthod. 2008, 38, 74–82. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Alves, M.; Franzotti, E.S.; Baratieri, C.; Nunes, L.K.F.; Nojima, L.I.; Ruellas, A.C.O. Evaluation of Pharyngeal Airway Space amongst Different Skeletal Patterns. Int. J. Oral. Maxillofac. Surg. 2012, 41, 814–819. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Di Carlo, G.; Polimeni, A.; Melsen, B.; Cattaneo, P.M. The Relationship between Upper Airways and Craniofacial Morphology Studied in 3D. A CBCT Study. Orthod. Craniofac. Res. 2015, 18, 1–11. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Grauer, D.; Cevidanes, L.S.H.; Styner, M.A.; Ackerman, J.L.; Proffit, W.R. Pharyngeal Airway Volume and Shape from Cone-Beam Computed Tomography: Relationship to Facial Morphology. Am. J. Orthod. Dentofac. Orthop. 2009, 136, 805–814. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Indriksone, I.; Jakobsone, G. The Upper Airway Dimensions in Different Sagittal Craniofacial Patterns: A Systematic Review. Stomatologija 2014, 16, 109–117. [Google Scholar]
- Vizzotto, M.B.; Liedke, G.S.; Delamare, E.L.; Silveira, H.D.; Dutra, V.; Silveira, H.E. A Comparative Study of Lateral Cephalograms and Cone-Beam Computed Tomographic Images in Upper Airway Assessment. Eur. J. Orthod. 2012, 34, 390–393. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Bronoosh, P.; Khojastepour, L. Analysis of Pharyngeal Airway Using Lateral Cephalogram vs CBCT Images: A Cross-Sectional Retrospective Study. Open Dent. J. 2015, 9, 263–266. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Popa, G.; Bratu, D.C.; Rusu, L.C.; Petrescu, P.H.; Simon, C.P.; Pop, S.I. Sagittal and Vertical Cephalometric Analysis in Adult Caucasians from Western Romania with Skeletal Class I and Class II Malocclusion. Med. Evol. 2019, 25, 69–75. [Google Scholar]
- Popa, G.; Bratu, D.C.; Podariu, A.C.; Drago, B.; Luca, M.M.; Pop, S.I. Cephalometric Analysis of the Upper Airway in Adult Caucasians with Skeletal Class I and Class II Malocclusion. Med. Evol. 2022, 28, 62–68. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Schober, P.; Schwarte, L.A. Correlation Coefficients: Appropriate Use and Interpretation. Anesth. Analg. 2018, 126, 1763–1768. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Yavari, N.; Samieirad, S.; Labafchi, A.; Rezaeetalab, F.; Eshghpour, M. Is There an Increase in the Risk of Obstructive Sleep Apnea After Isolated Mandibular Setback Surgery? An Evaluation Using the STOP-BANG Questionnaire. J. Oral. Maxillofac. Surg. 2020, 78, 2061–2069. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Schilbred Eriksen, E.; Gulati, S.; Moen, K.; Wisth, P.J.; Løes, S. Apnea-Hypopnea Index in Healthy Class III Patients Treated With Intraoral Vertical Ramus Osteotomy: A Prospective Cohort Study. J. Oral. Maxillofac. Surg. 2019, 77, 582–590. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Indriksone, I.; Jakobsone, G. The Influence of Craniofacial Morphology on the Upper Airway Dimensions. Angle Orthod. 2015, 85, 874–880. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Cheng, J.H.; Chen, C.M.; Chen, P.H.; Chou, S.T.; Pan, C.Y.; Tseng, Y.C. Comparison of Pharyngeal Airway between Mandibular Setback Surgery Patients (Skeletal Class III) and Nonsurgery Patients (Skeletal Classes I and II). Biomed. Res. Int. 2019, 2019, 5012037. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Hsiao, S.-Y.; Chen, Y.-A.; Ting, C.-C. Pharyngeal Airway and Craniocervical Angle among Different Skeletal Patterns. Biomed. Res. Int. 2021, 2021, 5536464. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Altheer, C.; Papageorgiou, S.N.; Antonarakis, G.S.; Papadopoulou, A.K. Do Patients with Different Craniofacial Patterns Have Differences in Upper Airway Volume? A Systematic Review with Network Meta-Analysis. Eur. J. Orthod. 2024, 46, cjae010. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Jaiswal, A.; Gupta, A.; Sharma, G.; Bishnoi, M.; Jaiswal, A. Cephalometric Evaluation of Airway Dimensions in Subjects with Different Sagittal and Vertical Variables. IP Indian J. Orthod. Dentofac. Res. 2020, 6, 86–89. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Ali Al-Somairi, M.A.; Liu, Y.; Almashraq, A.A.; Almaqrami, B.S.; Alshoaibi, L.H.; Alyafrusee, E.S.; Al-Tayar, B.; An, X.; Alhammadi, M.S. Correlation between the Three-Dimensional Maxillomandibular Complex Parameters and Pharyngeal Airway Dimensions in Different Sagittal and Vertical Malocclusions. Dentomaxillofac. Radiol. 2023, 52, 20220346. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Alfawzan, A.A. Assessment of Airway Dimensions in Skeletal Class I Malocclusion Patients with Various Vertical Facial Patterns: A Cephalometric Study in a Sample of the Saudi Population. J. Orthod. Sci. 2020, 9, 12. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Nicoo, M.; Fakhri, F.; Nikou, F.; Parastesh, A. Correlation Between Cephalometric and Photographic Results of Determining the Lower Anterior Facial Height. Hormozgan Med. J. 2019, 23, e86932. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Roy, P.; Roy, P.; Koley, S. Comparative Assessment of Various Cephalometric Parameters Used for Determining Vertical Skeletal Dysplasia. Cureus 2024, 16, e55101. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Jain, S.; Raghav, P.; Misra, V.; Reddy, C.M.; Singh, S.; Aggarwal, S. Assessment of Upper and Lower Pharyngeal Airway Width in Skeletal Class I, II and III Malocclusions. J. Indian Orthod. Soc. 2014, 48, 446–453. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Obaidi, H.A. Variation of Facial Heights among the Class I, II and III Dentoskeletal Relationships (Cephalometric Study). Al-Rafidain Dent. J. 2006, 6, 98–105. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Ellis, E.; McNamara, J.A. Components of Adult Class III Malocclusion. J. Oral. Maxillofac. Surg. 1984, 42, 295–305. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Ishii, N.; Deguchi, T.; Hunt, N.P. Craniofacial Differences between Japanese and British Caucasian Females with a Skeletal Class III Malocclusion. Eur. J. Orthod. 2002, 24, 493–499. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Rutili, V.; Nieri, M.; Giuntini, V.; McNamara, J.A.; Franchi, L. A Multilevel Analysis of Craniofacial Growth in Subjects with Untreated Class III Malocclusion. Orthod. Craniofac. Res. 2020, 23, 181–191. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- de Frutos-Valle, L.; Martin, C.; Alarcón, J.A.; Palma-Fernández, J.C.; Ortega, R.; Iglesias-Linares, A. Sub-Clustering in Skeletal Class III Malocclusion Phenotypes via Principal Component Analysis in a Southern European Population. Sci. Rep. 2020, 10, 17882. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Jacobson, A.; Evans, W.G.; Preston, C.B.; Sadowsky, P.L. Mandibular Prognathism. Am. J. Orthod. 1974, 66, 140–171. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Baccetti, T.; Reyes, B.; McNamara, J., Jr. Gender Differences in Class III Malocclusion. Angle Orthod. 2005, 75, 510–520. [Google Scholar]
- Aristide, A.S.; Dragomirescu, A.-O.; Bencze, M.-A.; Băluță, A.; Ionescu, E. Vertical Cephalometric Characteristics in Class III Malocclusions. Curr. Health Sci. J. 2022, 48, 446–453. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Moon, Y.; Ahn, S.; Chang, Y. Cephalometric Predictors of Long-Term Stability in the Early Treatment of Class III Malocclusion. Angle Orthod. 2005, 75, 747–753. [Google Scholar] [PubMed]
- Tahmina, K.; Tanaka, E.; Tanne, K. Craniofacial Morphology in Orthodontically Treated Patients of Class III Malocclusion with Stable and Unstable Treatment Outcomes. Am. J. Orthod. Dentofac. Orthop. 2000, 17, 681–690. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
Descriptive Statistics | Independent t-Test/b Mann–Whitney U Test Sig. (2-Tailed) | |||||||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Variables | Unit of Measure | Class I | Class III | Class I | Class III | Class I vs. Class III | ||||
Sex | N | Mean ± SD a Median ± IR | F vs. M | F vs. M | F | M | T | |||
Age | years | F | 25 | 23.68 ± 3.11 | 25.04 ± 4.67 | - | - | - | - | - |
M | 25 | 25.76 ± 4.25 | 24.44 ± 3.45 | |||||||
T | 50 | 24.72 ± 3.83 | 24.74 ± 4.08 | |||||||
ANB | deg | F | 25 | 2.33 ± 0.96 | −2.38 ± 1.92 | - | - | - | - | - |
M | 25 | 2.11 ± 1.03 | −2.34 ± 1.80 | |||||||
T | 50 | 2.22 ± 0.99 | −2.36 ± 1.84 | |||||||
Wits | mm | F | 25 | −0.14 ± 1.02 | −4.85 ± 2.90 | - | - | - | - | - |
M | 25 | −0.32 ± 0.76 | −5.06 ± 2.99 | |||||||
T | 50 | −0.23 ± 0.89 | −4.96 ± 2.92 | |||||||
FMA | deg | F | 25 | 23.06 ± 3.93 | 21.62 ± 5.18 | 0.184 b | 0.548 | 0.273 | 0.720 b | 0.298 b |
M | 25 | 21.37 ± 5.69 a | 20.88 ± 3.26 | |||||||
T | 50 | 21.88 ± 5.86 a | 21.25 ± 4.30 | |||||||
NL–ML | deg | F | 25 | 22.78 ± 5.64 | 21.63 ± 4.92 | 0.642 | 0.622 | 0.445 | 0.295 | 0.214 |
M | 25 | 22.15 ± 3.79 | 21.01 ± 3.78 | |||||||
T | 50 | 22.46 ± 4.77 | 21.32 ± 4.35 | |||||||
Y–FH | deg | F | 25 | 58.55 ± 2.49 | 56.54 ± 3.43 | 0.492 | 0.371 | 0.022 * | 0.032 * | 0.002 ** |
M | 25 | 59.14 ± 3.42 | 57.30 ± 2.37 | |||||||
T | 50 | 58.84 ± 2.98 | 56.92 ± 2.94 | |||||||
Ba–S–PNS | deg | F | 25 | 58.27 ± 3.14 | 57.15 ± 3.51 | 0.021 * | 0.006 ** | 0.242 | 0.235 | 0.119 |
M | 25 | 55.47 ± 4.98 | 53.85 ± 4.50 | |||||||
T | 50 | 56.87 ± 4.36 | 55.50 ± 4.33 | |||||||
TAFH | mm | F | 25 | 108.92 ± 4.08 | 109.44 ± 6.09 | 0.000 *** | 0.000 *** | 0.727 | 0.744 | 0.973 |
M | 25 | 118.70 ± 5.16 | 118.28 ± 3.86 | |||||||
T | 50 | 113.81 ± 6.75 | 113.86 ± 6.74 | |||||||
UAFH | mm | F | 25 | 48.82 ± 2.46 | 48.53 ± 2.78 | 0.001 *** | 0.000 *** | 0.705 | 0.030 * | 0.324 |
M | 25 | 50.90 ± 1.60 | 52.32 ± 2.71 | |||||||
T | 50 | 49.86 ± 2.30 | 50.43 ± 3.32 | |||||||
LAFH | mm | F | 25 | 60.11 ± 4.46 | 60.90 ± 4.76 | 0.000 *** | 0.000 *** | 0.545 | 0.135 | 0.636 |
M | 25 | 67.80 ± 4.94 | 65.96 ± 3.50 | |||||||
T | 50 | 63.95 ± 6.07 | 63.43 ± 4.86 | |||||||
TPFH | mm | F | 25 | 72.94 ± 3.53 | 74.95 ± 4.75 | 0.000 *** | 0.000 *** | 0.096 | 0.672 | 0.591 |
M | 25 | 84.31 ± 4.20 | 83.75 ± 4.98 | |||||||
T | 50 | 78.62 ± 6.91 | 79.35 ± 6.56 | |||||||
TPFH/TAFH | % | F | 25 | 67.01 ± 3.20 | 68.59 ± 4.32 | 0.000 *** | 0.067 | 0.148 | 0.825 | 0.414 |
M | 25 | 71.08 ± 3.31 | 70.84 ± 4.17 | |||||||
T | 50 | 69.04 ± 3.82 | 69.72 ± 4.35 | |||||||
PNSp–Ad | mm | F | 25 | 17.98 ± 3.05 | 18.85 ± 3.53 | 0.648 b | 0.584 | 0.352 | 0.866 | 0.567 b |
M | 25 | 18.60 ± 3.38 a | 18.31 ± 3.44 | |||||||
T | 50 | 18.55 ± 4.14 a | 18.58 ± 3.46 | |||||||
UPAW | mm | F | 25 | 20.40 ± 1.91 | 20.64 ± 2.98 | 0.326 | 0.003 ** | 0.736 | 0.021 * | 0.190 |
M | 25 | 19.82 ± 2.22 | 18.22 ± 2.51 | |||||||
T | 50 | 20.11 ± 2.07 | 19.43 ± 2.99 | |||||||
MPAW | mm | F | 25 | 8.85 ± 2.19 | 9.86 ± 2.73 | 0.681 | 0.098 | 0.156 | 0.490 | 0.566 |
M | 25 | 9.12 ± 2.35 | 8.66 ± 2.27 | |||||||
T | 50 | 8.99 ± 2.25 | 9.26 ± 2.56 | |||||||
LPAW | mm | F | 25 | 10.18 ± 2.68 | 12.03 ± 3.22 | 0.074 | 0.576 | 0.032 * | 0.209 | 0.016 * |
M | 25 | 11.48 ± 2.34 | 12.57 ± 3.60 | |||||||
T | 50 | 10.83 ± 2.57 | 12.30 ± 3.39 |
Coefficient Value | Relationship Strength/Correlation |
---|---|
0.00 to ±0.09 | Negligible |
±0.10 to ±0.39 | Weak |
±0.40 to ±0.69 | Moderate |
±0.70 to ±0.89 | Strong |
±0.90 to ±0.99 | Very strong |
1 | Perfect |
Class I Variables | FMA | NL–ML | Y–FH | Ba–S–PNS | TAFH | UAFH | LAFH | TPFH | TPFH/TAFH | PNSp–Ad | UPAW | MPAW | LPAW | |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
FMA | CC | 1 | ||||||||||||
p | ||||||||||||||
NL–ML | CC | 0.814 a | 1 | |||||||||||
p | 0.000 ** | |||||||||||||
Y–FH | CC | 0.630 a | 0.542 | 1 | ||||||||||
p | 0.000 ** | 0.000 ** | ||||||||||||
Ba–S–PNS | CC | −0.336 a | −0.270 | −0.518 | 1 | |||||||||
p | 0.017 * | 0.058 | 0.000 ** | |||||||||||
TAFH | CC | 0.240 a | 0.323 | 0.453 | −0.381 | 1 | ||||||||
p | 0.093 | 0.022 * | 0.001 ** | 0.006 ** | ||||||||||
UAFH | CC | −0.190 a | −0.429 | 0.009 | −0.089 | - | 1 | |||||||
p | 0.185 | 0.002** | 0.952 | 0.537 | - | |||||||||
LAFH | CC | 0.319 a | 0.523 | 0.501 | −0.390 | - | 0.124 | 1 | ||||||
p | 0.024 * | 0.000 ** | 0.000 ** | 0.005 ** | - | 0.390 | ||||||||
TPFH | CC | −0.293 a | −0.168 | 0.216 | −0.382 | 0.783 | 0.468 | 0.694 | 1 | |||||
p | 0.039 * | 0.245 | 0.133 | 0.006 ** | 0.000 ** | 0.001 ** | 0.000 ** | |||||||
TPFH/TAFH | CC | −0.690 a | −0.615 | −0.144 | −0.198 | - | - | - | - | 1 | ||||
p | 0.000 ** | 0.000 ** | 0.319 | 0.167 | - | - | - | - | ||||||
PNSp–Ad | CC | −0.120 a | −0.138 a | −0.030 a | 0.080 a | −0.103 a | 0.035 a | −0.124 a | −0.012 a | 0.157 a | 1 | |||
p | 0.408 | 0.338 | 0.834 | 0.581 | 0.475 | 0.812 | 0.391 | 0.936 | 0.277 | |||||
UPAW | CC | −0.213 a | −0.245 | −0.177 | 0.336 | −0.221 | 0.027 | −0.256 | −0.058 | 0.135 | 0.404 a | 1 | ||
p | 0.138 | 0.086 | 0.218 | 0.017 * | 0.124 | 0.851 | 0.073 | 0.689 | 0.350 | 0.004 ** | ||||
MPAW | CC | −0.271 a | −0.291 | −0.207 | 0.262 | 0.019 | 0.184 | −0.048 | 0.142 | 0.200 | 0.447 a | −0.012 | 1 | |
p | 0.057 | 0.040 * | 0.149 | 0.066 | 0.894 | 0.202 | 0.740 | 0.324 | 0.163 | 0.001 ** | 0.937 | |||
LPAW | CC | −0.069 a | 0.022 | −0.123 | −0.011 | 0.219 | 0.069 | 0.217 | 0.233 | 0.139 | −0.002 a | −0.148 | 0.504 | 1 |
p | 0.633 | 0.877 | 0.395 | 0.939 | 0.126 | 0.633 | 0.129 | 0.103 | 0.334 | 0.988 | 0.304 | 0.000 ** |
Class III Variables | FMA | NL–ML | Y–FH | Ba–S–PNS | TAFH | UAFH | LAFH | TPFH | TPFH/TAFH | PNSp–Ad | UPAW | MPAW | LPAW | |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
FMA | CC | 1 | ||||||||||||
p | ||||||||||||||
NL–ML | CC | 0.792 | 1 | |||||||||||
p | 0.000 ** | |||||||||||||
Y–FH | CC | 0.601 | 0.361 | 1 | ||||||||||
p | 0.000 ** | 0.010 ** | ||||||||||||
Ba–S–PNS | CC | −0.050 | −0.042 | −0.332 | 1 | |||||||||
p | 0.732 | 0.770 | 0.018 * | |||||||||||
TAFH | CC | 0.316 | 0.299 | 0.441 | −0.436 | 1 | ||||||||
p | 0.025 * | 0.035 * | 0.001 ** | 0.002 ** | ||||||||||
UAFH | CC | 0.074 | −0.098 | 0.138 | −0.330 | - | 1 | |||||||
p | 0.611 | 0.499 | 0.340 | 0.019 * | - | |||||||||
LAFH | CC | 0.388 | 0.481 | 0.517 | −0.379 | - | 0.332 | 1 | ||||||
p | 0.005 ** | 0.000 ** | 0.000 ** | 0.007 ** | - | 0.018 * | ||||||||
TPFH | CC | −0.299 | −0.315 | 0.246 | −0.528 | 0.651 | 0.530 | 0.541 | 1 | |||||
p | 0.035 * | 0.026 * | 0.085 | 0.000 ** | 0.000 ** | 0.000 ** | 0.000 ** | |||||||
TPFH/TAFH | CC | −0.697 | −0.700 | −0.106 | −0.267 | - | - | - | - | 1 | ||||
p | 0.000 ** | 0.000 ** | 0.464 | 0.061 | - | - | - | - | ||||||
PNSp–Ad | CC | 0.040 | −0.037 | 0.012 | 0.225 | −0.101 | 0.069 | −0.187 | −0.045 | 0.051 | 1 | |||
p | 0.781 | 0.798 | 0.933 | 0.116 | 0.485 | 0.633 | 0.193 | 0.759 | 0.724 | |||||
UPAW | CC | 0.033 | −0.143 | 0.030 | 0.411 | −0.359 | −0.162 | −0.387 | −0.218 | 0.062 | 0.590 | 1 | ||
p | 0.821 | 0.322 | 0.834 | 0.003 ** | 0.010 * | 0.260 | 0.006 ** | 0.129 | 0.671 | 0.000 ** | ||||
MPAW | CC | −0.162 | −0.194 | −0.135 | 0.170 | −0.228 | −0.195 | −0.183 | 0.000 | 0.228 | 0.422 | 0.161 | 1 | |
p | 0.262 | 0.177 | 0.349 | 0.238 | 0.110 | 0.174 | 0.203 | 1.000 | 0.112 | 0.002 ** | 0.265 | |||
LPAW | CC | −0.160 | −0.090 | −0.049 | 0.057 | 0.055 | 0.018 | 0.064 | 0.182 | 0.197 | 0.202 | −0.052 | 0.604 | 1 |
p | 0.268 | 0.533 | 0.734 | 0.694 | 0.705 | 0.900 | 0.660 | 0.206 | 0.171 | 0.160 | 0.721 | 0.000 ** |
Disclaimer/Publisher’s Note: The statements, opinions and data contained in all publications are solely those of the individual author(s) and contributor(s) and not of MDPI and/or the editor(s). MDPI and/or the editor(s) disclaim responsibility for any injury to people or property resulting from any ideas, methods, instructions or products referred to in the content. |
© 2025 by the authors. Published by MDPI on behalf of the Lithuanian University of Health Sciences. Licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland. This article is an open access article distributed under the terms and conditions of the Creative Commons Attribution (CC BY) license (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/).
Share and Cite
Popa, G.; Bratu, D.-C.; Mihali, S.G.; Pop, S.I.; Dragoș, B.; Bratu, R.-C.; Tudor, A.; Jivănescu, A. Evaluation of Upper Airway Width and Facial Height Cephalometric Parameters in Adult Caucasians with Skeletal Class I and Class III Malocclusion. Medicina 2025, 61, 463. https://doi.org/10.3390/medicina61030463
Popa G, Bratu D-C, Mihali SG, Pop SI, Dragoș B, Bratu R-C, Tudor A, Jivănescu A. Evaluation of Upper Airway Width and Facial Height Cephalometric Parameters in Adult Caucasians with Skeletal Class I and Class III Malocclusion. Medicina. 2025; 61(3):463. https://doi.org/10.3390/medicina61030463
Chicago/Turabian StylePopa, George, Dana-Cristina Bratu, Sorin Gheorghe Mihali, Silvia Izabella Pop, Bianca Dragoș, Remus-Christian Bratu, Anca Tudor, and Anca Jivănescu. 2025. "Evaluation of Upper Airway Width and Facial Height Cephalometric Parameters in Adult Caucasians with Skeletal Class I and Class III Malocclusion" Medicina 61, no. 3: 463. https://doi.org/10.3390/medicina61030463
APA StylePopa, G., Bratu, D.-C., Mihali, S. G., Pop, S. I., Dragoș, B., Bratu, R.-C., Tudor, A., & Jivănescu, A. (2025). Evaluation of Upper Airway Width and Facial Height Cephalometric Parameters in Adult Caucasians with Skeletal Class I and Class III Malocclusion. Medicina, 61(3), 463. https://doi.org/10.3390/medicina61030463