Farklı Maloklüzyonların Ortodontik Tedavisinde Maksiller Sinüs Boyutlarındaki Değişimin Belirlenmesi

Yıl 2022, Cilt: 9 Sayı: 1, 1 - 7, 27.04.2022

Betül Yüzbaşıoğlu Ertuğrul

https://doi.org/10.15311/selcukdentj.813770

Öz

AMAÇ: Kraniyofasiyal büyüme-gelişme, karmaşık ve çok faktörlü bir yapıya sahiptir. Fonksiyonel matriks teorisine göre yumuşak dokular, sert dokuların gelişim yönünü değiştirerek kraniyal yapı içindeki sinüs boşluklarını etkiler. Bu çalışmanın amacı, maloklüzyon gruplarına göre ortodontik tedavilerden sonra maksiller sinüs boyutlarındaki değişimi belirlemektir.
GEREÇ VE YÖNTEM: Çalışmamız, kabul kriterlerini karşılayan 51 kişiden oluşmaktadır. Çalışmamız geriye dönük olarak yapılmıştır. Çalışmaya dahil edilen bireyler panoramik filmlerde maksiller sinüs boyutları karşılaştırılarak maloklüzyon grupları açısından analiz edilmiştir.
BULGULAR: Ortodontik tedavi öncesi maksiller sinüsün girintili taban uzunluğu, düzlemsel uzunluğu ve maksiller sinüs alan ölçümlerinin tedavi sonrasına göre değiştiği belirlenmiştir. Sınıf I'de, tedavi sonrası maksiller sinüs girintisi taban uzunluğu azalmış ve ortalama düzlemsel taban uzunluğu ve maksiller sinüs alanı artmıştır. Sınıf II'de tedavi sonrası maksiller sinüs girintisi taban uzunluğu ve ortalama düzlemsel taban uzunluğu artmış, maksiller sinüs alanı azalmıştır. Sınıf III'de, tedavi sonrası maksiller sinüs indentasyon taban uzunluğu ve ortalama düzlemsel taban uzunluğu azalmış, maksiller sinüs alanı tedavi öncesine göre artmıştır.
SONUÇ: Ortodontik tedavi görmüş Sınıf I, II ve III hastaların sinüs boyutlarında değişiklikler olmuştur. Ortodontik tedaviler öncesi olası kraniyofasiyal yapılarda meydana gelen değişiklikler dikkatlice değerlendirilmeli ve uygulanacak ortodontik tedavilere, bu değerlendirmelerden sonra karar verilmelidir.

Anahtar Kelimeler

Maksiller sinüs boyutları, maloklüzyon grupları, ortodontik tedavi

Determination of The Change of Maxillary Sinus Size in Orthodontic Treatment of Different Malocclusions

Öz

Background: Craniofacial growth-development has a complex and multifactorial structure. According to functional matrix theory, soft tissues change the development direction of hard tissues and affect the sinus cavities within the cranial structure. The objective of this study is to determine the change in the maxillary sinus dimensions after orthodontic treatments according to malocclusion groups.
Methods: Our study comprises 51 individuals who have met the admission criteria. Our study was carried out retrospectively. The individuals included in the study have been analyzed in terms of malocclusion groups by comparing their maxillary sinus dimensions on panoramic films.
Results: The intended base length, planar length of the maxillary sinus, and the area measurements of the maxillary sinus have been found to be different at pre-treatment and post-treatment in terms of malocclusion. In Class I, the post-treatment maxillary sinus indentation base length has decreased, and the average planar base length and the maxillary sinus area has increased, and in Class II, the post-treatment maxillary sinus indentation base length and the average planar base length has increased, the maxillary sinus area has decreased, and in Class III, The post-treatment maxillary sinus indentation base length and the average planar base length has decreased, and the maxillary sinus area has increased compared to the pre-treatment.
Conclusion: There have been changes in the sinus dimensions of Class I, II, and Class III patients who have received orthodontic treatment compared to the pre-treatment. The changes in the possible craniofacial structures before orthodontic treatments should be taken into consideration carefully, and the dental treatments to be applied should be decided after such considerations.

Anahtar Kelimeler

Maxillary sinus dimensions, malocclusion groups, orthodontic treatment

Kaynakça

• 1. Meyer W. On adenoid vegetations in the naso-pharyngeal cavity: their pathology, diagnosis, and treatment. Medico-Chirurgical Transactions. 1870; 53: 191.
• 2. Aboudara C, Nielsen I, Huang JC, Maki K, Miller AJ, Hatcher D. Comparison of airway space with conventional lateral head films and 3-dimensional reconstruction from cone-beam computed tomography. American Journal of Orthodontics Dentofacial Orthopedics. 2009; 135(4): 468-79.
• 3. Moss M. The Functional Matrix.Vistas in Orthod. 1962, p. 85-98.
• 4. Lowe AA, Fleetham JA, Adachi S, Ryan CF. Cephalometric and computed tomographic predictors of obstructive sleep apnea severity. American Journal of Orthodontics Dentofacial Orthopedics 1995; 107(6): 589-95.
• 5. Joseph AA, Elbaum J, Cisneros GJ, Eisig SB. A cephalometric comparative study of the soft tissue airway dimensions in persons with hyperdivergent and normodivergent facial patterns. Journal of Oral Maxillofacial Surgery. 1998; 56(2): 135-9.
• 6. Sheng C-M, Lin L-H, Su Y, Tsai H-H. Developmental changes in pharyngeal airway depth and hyoid bone position from childhood to young adulthood. The Angle Orthodontist. 2009; 79(3): 484-90.
• 7. Harvold EP, Tomer BS, Vargervik K, Chierici G. Primate experiments on oral respiration. American Journal of Orthodontics. 1981; 79(4): 359-72.
• 8. Tourne L. Growth of the pharynx and its physiologic implications. American Journal of Orthodontics Dentofacial Orthopedics. 1991; 99(2): 129-39.
• 9. Moore A. Observations on mouth breathing. Bulletin-NZ Society of Periodontology. 1972(33): 9.
• 10. Ricketts RM. Forum on the tonsil and adenoid problem in orthodontics respiratory obstruction syndrome. American Journal of Orthodontics Dentofacial Orthopedics. 1968; 54(7): 495-507.
• 11. Leech H. A clinical analysis of orofacial morphology and behaviour of 500 patients attending an upper respiratory research clinic. Dent Practit. 1958; 4: 57- 68.
• 12. Kluemper GT, Vig PS, Vig KW. Nasorespiratory characteristics and craniofacial morphology. The European Journal of Orthodontics. 1995; 17(6): 491-5.
• 13. Martin O, Muelas L, Viñas MJ. Nasopharyngeal cephalometric study of ideal occlusions. American Journal of Orthodontics Dentofacial Orthopedics. 2006; 130(4): 436-40.
• 14. Martin S, Mathur R, Marshall I, Douglas N. The effect of age, sex, obesity and posture on upper airway size. European Respiratory Journal. 1997; 10(9): 2087- 90.
• 15. Daniel MM, Lorenzi MC, Leite CdC, Lorenzi-Filho G. Pharyngeal dimensions in healthy men and women. Clinics. 2007; 62(1): 5-10.
• 16. Gökçe SM, Görgülü S, Gökçe HS, Bengi AO, Sağdıç D. Sağlıklı bireylerde farengeal hava yolu, dil boyutlarının ve hyoid pozisyonun belirlenmesi. Gülhane Medical Journal. 2013; 55(2): 117-22.
• 17. Chiang CC, Jeffres MN, Miller A, Hatcher DC. Three-dimensional airway evaluation in 387 subjects from one university orthodontic clinic using cone beam computed tomography. The Angle Orthodontist. 2012; 82(6): 985-92.
• 18. Abramson Z, Susarla S, Troulis M, Kaban L. Age-related changes of the upper airway assessed by 3-dimensional computed tomography. Journal of Craniofacial Surgery. 2009; 20: 657-63.
• 19. Proffit W, Fields JH, Moray L. Prevalence of malocclusion and orthodontic treatment need in the United States: estimates from the NHANES III survey. The International Journal of Adult Orthodontics Orthognathic Surgery. 1998; 13(2): 97-106.
• 20. McNamara J, James A. Components of Class II malocclusion in children 8–10 years of age. The Angle Orthodontist. 1981; 51(3): 177-202.
• 21. Kim YJ, Hong JS, Hwang YI, Park YH. Three-dimensional analysis of pharyngeal airway in preadolescent children with different anteroposterior skeletal patterns. American Journal of Orthodontics Dentofacial Orthopedics. 2010; 137(3): 306. e1-. e11.
• 22. Keçik BD. Mandibula konumunun üst hava yoluna etkisinin değerlendirilmesi. Türk Ortodonti Dergisi. 2009; 22: 93-101.
• 23. Kirjavainen M, Kirjavainen T. Upper airway dimensions in Class II malocclusion: effects of headgear treatment. The Angle Orthodontist. 2007; 77(6): 1046-53.
• 24. Mergen DC, Jacobs RM. The size of nasopharynx associated with normal occlusion and Class II malocclusion. The Angle Orthodontist. 1970; 40(4): 342- 6.
• 25. Oktay H, Ulukaya E. Maxillary protraction appliance effect on the size of the upper airway passage. The Angle Orthodontist. 2008; 78(2): 209-14.
• 26. Iwasaki T, Hayasaki H, Takemoto Y, Kanomi R, Yamasaki Y. Oropharyngeal airway in children with Class III malocclusion evaluated by cone-beam computed tomography. American Journal of Orthodontics Dentofacial Orthopedics. 2009; 136(3): 318. e1-. e9.
• 27. Alves PVM, Zhao L, O'Gara M, Patel PK, Bolognese AM. Three-dimensional cephalometric study of upper airway space in skeletal class II and III healthy patients. Journal of Craniofacial Surgery. 2008; 19(6): 1497-507.
• 28. Jena AK, Singh SP, Utreja AK. Sagittal mandibular development effects on the dimensions of the awake pharyngeal airway passage. The Angle Orthodontist. 2010; 80(6): 1061-7.
• 29. Muto T, Yamazaki A, Takeda S. A cephalometric evaluation of the pharyngeal airway space in patients with mandibular retrognathia and prognathia, and normal subjects. International Journal of Oral Maxillofacial Surgery. 2008; 37(3): 228-31.
• 30. Hänggi MP, Teuscher UM, Roos M, Peltomäki TA. Long-term changes in pharyngeal airway dimensions following activator-headgear and fixed appliance treatment. The European Journal of Orthodontics. 2008; 30(6): 598-605.