The relationship between frontal sinus dimensions and skeletal malocclusion

Abstract

Purpose The aim of this retrospective research is to compare frontal sinus dimensions in skeletal Class I, skeletal Class II, and skeletal Class III individuals and to evaluate the relationship of these dimensions with anterior skull base length and some cephalometric values. Materials and Methods In this research, we used lateral cephalometric radiographs of 60 people aged 17 to 25. In individuals with skeletal Class I malocclusion, skeletal Class II malocclusion due to mandibular insufficiency, and skeletal Class III malocclusion due to mandibular excess, measurements of frontal sinus length and height as well as S-N, Co-A and CoGn lengths, ANB0 , FMA0 , SN-GoGn0 angles values were performed. The length between the highest point and the lowest point of the frontal sinus was calculated as the height of the frontal sinus, and the length between the most anterior and the most posterior points of the frontal sinus was calculated as the length of the frontal sinus. Results The frontal sinus length and height were found to be higher in skeletal Class III individuals than in skeletal Class I and skeletal Class II individuals, however, there was no significant difference between skeletal Class I and Class II individuals. Conclusion The increase in frontal sinus height and length correlated positively with the decrease in the ANB angle and the increase in the SN and Co-Gn lengths. The dimensions of the frontal sinus may be an indicator for the remaining mandibular growth potential. 

Keywords

• Frontal sinus
• cephalometry
• mandible
• skeletal malocclusion
• growth

References

1. 1. Flores-Mir C, Orth C, Nebbe B, W. Major P. Use of skeletal maturation based on hand-wrist radiographic analysis as a predictor of facial growth: a systematic review. Angle Orthod 2004;74(1):118-24.
2. 2. Björk A, Helm S. Prediction of the age of maximum puberal growth in body height. Angle Orthod 1967;37(2):134-43. 3. Baccetti T, Franchi L, McNamara JA. The Cervical Vertebral Maturation (CVM) method for the assessment of optimal treatment timing in dentofacial orthopedics. Semin Orthod 2005;11(3):119-129.
3. 4. Bacetti T, Reyes BC, McNamara JA. Gender differences in Class III malocclusion. Angle Orthod 2005;75(4):510-21.
4. 5. Hassel B, Farman AG. Skeletal maturation evaluation using cervical vertebrae. Am J Orthod Dentofac Orthop 1995;107(1):58–66.
5. 6. Perinetti G, Westphalen GH, Biasotto M, Salgarello S, Contardo L. The diagnostic performance of dental maturity for identification of the circumpubertal growth phases: A meta-analysis. Prog. Orthod 2013;14(1):8.
6. 7. Durka-Zajac M, Marcinkowska A, Mituś-Kenig M. Bone age assessment using cephalometric photographs. Polish J. Radiol 2013;78(2):19–25.
7. 8. Patcas R, Signorelli L, Peltomäki T, Schätzle M. Is the use of the cervical vertebrae maturation method justified to determine skeletal age? A comparison of radiation dose of two strategies for skeletal age estimation. Eur. J. Orthod 2013;35(5):604–9.
8. 9. Soegiharto BM, Cunningham SJ, Moles DR. Skeletal maturation in Indonesian and white children assessed with hand-wrist and cervical vertebrae methods. Am. J. Orthod. Dentofac Orthop. 2008;134(2):217–26.

9. 10. Ruf S, Pancherz H. Development of the frontal sinus in relation to somatic and skeletal maturity. A cephalometric roentgenographic study at puberty. Eur. J. Orthod 1996;18(5):491–7.
10. 11. Enlow DH, Hans MG. Essentials of facial growth. Philadelphia: Saunders, 1996.
11. 12. Buyuk SK, Karaman A, Yasa Y. Association between frontal sinus morphology and craniofacial parameters: A forensic view. J. Forensic Leg. Med 2017;49:20–23.
12. 13. Mahmood HT, Shaikh A, Fida M. Association between frontal sinus morphology and cervical vertebral maturation for the assessment of skeletal maturity. Am. J. Orthod Dentofac. Orthop. 2016;150(4):637–642.
13. 14. Lambrechts AH, Harris AM, Rossouw PE, Stander I. Dimensional differences in the craniofacial morphologies of groups with deep and shallow mandibular antegonial notching. Angle Orthod 1996;66(4):265-72.
14. 15. Salehi P, Heidari S, Khajeh F. Relationship between frontal sinus surface area and mandibular size on lateral cephalograms of adults. J Isfahan Dent. Sch 2012;8:244–50.
15. 16. Ertürk N. Fernröntgenuntersuchungen über die Entwicklung der Stirnhöhle. Fortschr Kieferorthop 1968;29:245-248.
16. 17. Guevara Y, Watanabe N, Yamaki M, Saito I. The frontal sinus enlargement as an indicator of growth maturity in class III patients- A pilot study. Int. J. Med. Sci. Public Heal 2013;2(3):430-434.
17. 18. Yassaei S, Emami A, Mirbeigi S. Cephalometric association of mandibular size/length to the surface area and dimensions of the frontal and maxillary sinuses. Eur J Dent 2018;12(2):253–261.
18. 19. Prashar A, Sharma VP, Singh G, Sharma N, Singh H. A cephalometric study of frontal sinus and ıts relation with craniofacial patterns. Indian J Dent Sci 2012; 4:4-8.
19. 20. Gökalp H, Şenol A, Karaca N. Sınıf II Maloklüzyonda Frontal Sinus ve Maksiller Büyüme Tahmini: Sefalometrik Çalışma. Ankara Üniv. Diş Hek. Fak. Dergi 2015; 42(3),159-164.
20. 21. Tehranchi A, Motamedian SR, Saedi S, Kabiri S, Shidfar S. Correlation between frontal sinus dimensions and cephalometric indices: A cross-sectional study Eur J Dent. 2017;11(1):64–70.
21. 22. Rossouw PE, Lombard CJ, Harris AM. The frontal sinus and mandibular growth prediction. AM J Orthod Dentofac Orthop 1991;100:542-6.