{"title":"评估不同生长模式的骨骼 II 级患者的最大吸气和呼气压力","authors":"Hita Rangarajan, I. I. Ayub, Sridevi Padmanabhan","doi":"10.2319/071723-496.1","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"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.","PeriodicalId":503286,"journal":{"name":"The Angle Orthodontist","volume":"20 5","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2023-12-28","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Assessment of maximal inspiratory and expiratory pressures in skeletal Class II patients with different growth patterns\",\"authors\":\"Hita Rangarajan, I. I. Ayub, Sridevi Padmanabhan\",\"doi\":\"10.2319/071723-496.1\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"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.\",\"PeriodicalId\":503286,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"The Angle Orthodontist\",\"volume\":\"20 5\",\"pages\":\"\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2023-12-28\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"The Angle Orthodontist\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.2319/071723-496.1\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"\",\"JCRName\":\"\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"The Angle Orthodontist","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.2319/071723-496.1","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0
摘要
目的:评估不同生长模式(水平生长模式、平均生长模式和垂直生长模式)的骨骼Ⅱ级患者的最大吸气压力(MIP)和呼气压力(MEP),并将其与气道尺寸相关联。 将寻求正畸治疗的骨骼基础为 II 类的患者分为以下几组:平均生长模式组、水平生长模式组和垂直生长模式组。对照组(n = 14)由骨骼基底为 I 类且生长模式为平均生长模式的患者组成。使用锥形束计算机断层扫描获得气道尺寸,并使用带压力传感器的肺活量计评估 MIP 和 MEP。此外,还进行了常规肺活量测定以评估肺功能。 研究组的最大吸气压和呼气压与对照组相比无明显差异。与研究组相比,I 类患者的口咽和鼻咽气道容积明显更大。研究组与对照组在气道最小横截面积方面无明显差异。最大吸气压力与气道容积之间呈弱正相关。 虽然 I 类患者的口咽和鼻咽气道容积明显更大,但具有不同生长模式的 II 类患者与 I 类对照组在呼吸肌强度或气道功能方面没有明显差异。这些发现强调了研究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。
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 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.