Indriksone Iveta, Jakobsone Gundega
Department of Orthodontics, Riga Stradins University, 20 Dzirciema, Riga LV 1007, Latvia.
Stomatologija. 2014;16(3):109-17.
OBJECTIVE. Upper airway changes caused by orthognathic surgery operations have been a topic of a concern in the orthodontic literature because of a possible development of obstructive sleep apnea. Diverse response of the airway patency could be expected if the dimensions of the airway differ among various malocclusions already before orthognathic treatment. However the associations between facial morphology and the upper airway dimensions have not been clarified. The purpose of this systematic review was to elucidate whether the upper airway dimensions differ among various sagittal craniofacial patterns. MATERIAL AND METHODS. MEDLINE and the Cochrane Library were searched up to November 2012. Reference lists of relevant articles were checked for further possible studies. Strict inclusion and exclusion criteria were applied when considering the studies to be included. Screening of eligible studies and data extraction were conducted independently by two reviewers. RESULTS. 758 studies were identified and 11 of these were recognized as suitable for further analysis. 75% of studies did not find differences in the nasopharyngeal dimensions among craniofacial patterns. The findings for the oropharyngeal dimensions were controversial as 5 of 11 investigations found these to be smaller in Class II subjects, and 6 of 11 concluded that oropharynx size is larger in Class III pattern. The vertical growth type of the subjects was not considered in five investigations, and 45% of the included studies used lateral cephalometry as only tool for airway assessment. CONCLUSIONS. Currently there is insufficient evidence that the upper airway dimensions differ in various sagittal skeletal patterns.
目的。正颌外科手术引起的上气道变化一直是正畸文献中关注的话题，因为可能会发展为阻塞性睡眠呼吸暂停。如果在正颌治疗之前不同错牙合畸形的气道尺寸就存在差异，那么气道通畅性可能会有不同的反应。然而，面部形态与上气道尺寸之间的关联尚未明确。本系统评价的目的是阐明不同矢状颅面模式的上气道尺寸是否存在差异。材料与方法。检索截至2012年11月的MEDLINE和Cochrane图书馆。检查相关文章的参考文献列表以寻找进一步可能的研究。在考虑纳入研究时应用严格的纳入和排除标准。由两名评价者独立进行合格研究的筛选和数据提取。结果。共识别出758项研究，其中11项被认为适合进一步分析。75%的研究未发现颅面模式之间鼻咽尺寸存在差异。口咽尺寸的研究结果存在争议，11项调查中有5项发现II类受试者的口咽尺寸较小，11项中有6项得出结论认为III类模式的口咽尺寸较大。5项调查未考虑受试者的垂直生长类型，纳入研究中有45%仅使用头颅侧位片作为气道评估工具。结论。目前没有足够的证据表明不同矢状骨骼模式的上气道尺寸存在差异。
