PDF(Pubmed)
Abstract：
OBJECTIVE: 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.
METHODS: 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.
RESULTS: 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.
CONCLUSIONS: 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.
METHODS: 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.
RESULTS: 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.
CONCLUSIONS: 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.
摘要：
目的：评估最大吸气（MIP）和呼气（MEP）压力，这反映了呼吸肌的力量，在具有不同生长模式的骨骼II类患者中(水平，平均,和垂直)，并将它们与气道尺寸相关联。
方法：将寻求正畸治疗的II类骨骼基础患者分为以下组：平均，水平,和垂直增长模式。对照组（n=14）包括具有I类骨骼基础和平均生长模式的患者。使用锥形束计算机断层扫描扫描获得气道尺寸，使用带有压力传感器的肺活量计评估MIP和MEP。还进行了常规肺活量测定以评估肺功能。
结果：研究组的最大吸气和呼气压力与对照组相比无显著差异。与研究组相比，I类患者的口咽和鼻咽气道容积明显更大。各组间气道的最小横截面面积没有观察到显著差异。观察到最大吸气压力与气道容积之间的弱正相关。
结论：虽然I类患者表现出显著更大的口咽和鼻咽气道容积，不同生长方式的II类患者与I类对照组之间的呼吸肌力量或气道功能没有显着差异。这些发现强调了探索颅面生长模式以外可能导致睡眠相关呼吸障碍的因素的重要性。
方法：将寻求正畸治疗的II类骨骼基础患者分为以下组：平均，水平,和垂直增长模式。对照组（n=14）包括具有I类骨骼基础和平均生长模式的患者。使用锥形束计算机断层扫描扫描获得气道尺寸，使用带有压力传感器的肺活量计评估MIP和MEP。还进行了常规肺活量测定以评估肺功能。
结果：研究组的最大吸气和呼气压力与对照组相比无显著差异。与研究组相比，I类患者的口咽和鼻咽气道容积明显更大。各组间气道的最小横截面面积没有观察到显著差异。观察到最大吸气压力与气道容积之间的弱正相关。
结论：虽然I类患者表现出显著更大的口咽和鼻咽气道容积，不同生长方式的II类患者与I类对照组之间的呼吸肌力量或气道功能没有显着差异。这些发现强调了探索颅面生长模式以外可能导致睡眠相关呼吸障碍的因素的重要性。
