Evaluation Of Sphenoid Sinus Volume And Cranial Base Length In Subjects With Different Sagittal Skeletal Malocclusions Original Research

Article Sidebar

PDF
Published: Jul 13, 2023
DOI: https://doi.org/10.56501/intjorthodrehabil.v14i2.870
Keywords:
Sphenoid sinus, anterior cranial base, cone beam computed tomography, skeletal malocclusions

Main Article Content

Arshya Kumar
Postgraduate Student, Department of Orthodontics and Dentofacial Orthopedics, Saveetha Dental College and Hospital, Saveetha Institute of Medical and Technical Sciences, SIMATS University
https://orcid.org/0009-0008-2920-1048
Srirengalakshmi Muthuswamy Pandian
Associate Professor, Department of Orthodontics and Dentofacial Orthopedics, Saveetha Dental College and Hospital, Saveetha Institute of Medical and Technical Sciences, SIMATS University

Abstract

Introduction: The most hidden and inaccessible of all the paranasal air sinuses is the sphenoid sinus, a cavity with an irregular shape that is situated in the middle of the cranial base. Since the anterior cranial base shows little growth after the age of 7, it is regarded as a stable reference for cephalometric analysis.
Objective: The aim of this study was to predict skeletal malocclusion by correlating the length of the cranial base and the volume of the sphenoid sinus in different sagittal skeletal patterns.
Materials and methodology: In this study, a total of 30 cone beam computed tomography (CBCT) scans of patients, aged between 18 and 35 years who underwent orthodontic and orthognathic treatment were evaluated. DICOM files from the CBCT scans were imported and viewed using Dolphin imaging software. Skeletal malocclusion was evaluated using a lateral cephalogram obtained from the CBCT. Volumetric analysis of the sphenoid sinus and length of the cranial base was evaluated with the help of the Dolphin imaging software. A normality test was done to decide the statistical method for data analysis. A one-way ANOVA with Tukey’s post hoc test was done to compare the three groups.
Results: There was a correlation noted between the volume of the sphenoid sinus in skeletal class II malocclusion but no correlation was noted in the length of the cranial base. The mean value of the volume of the sphenoid sinus in subjects with class II skeletal malocclusion was 12613.50± 2023.409 which was greater compared to the other skeletal malocclusions.
Conclusion: Sphenoid sinus volume was reported to be increased in subjects with skeletal class II malocclusion but there was no correlation between the cranial base length and sphenoid sinus volume in any group.


 

Article Details

How to Cite
Kumar, A., & Pandian, S. M. (2023). Evaluation Of Sphenoid Sinus Volume And Cranial Base Length In Subjects With Different Sagittal Skeletal Malocclusions: Original Research. International Journal of Orthodontic Rehabilitation, 14(2), 54–64. https://doi.org/10.56501/intjorthodrehabil.v14i2.870
Issue
Vol. 14 No. 2 (2023): International Journal of Orthodontic Rehabilitation
Section
Articles
Creative Commons License

This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial 4.0 International License.

References

Yesiltepe S, Kurtuldu E, Bayrakdar IS, Yilmaz AB. Cone beam computed tomography evaluation of sphenoid sinus in different sagittal skeletal pattern. Eur Oral Res. 2022 Sep 5;56(3):143–8.

Nejaim Y, Farias Gomes A, Valadares CV, Costa ED, Peroni LV, Groppo FC, et al. Evaluation of volume of the sphenoid sinus according to sex, facial type, skeletal class, and presence of a septum: a cone-beam computed tomographic study. Br J Oral Maxillofac Surg. 2019 May;57(4):336–40.

Singh P, Hung K, Ajmera DH, Yeung AWK, von Arx T, Bornstein MM. Morphometric characteristics of the sphenoid sinus and potential influencing factors: a retrospective assessment using cone beam computed tomography (CBCT). Anat Sci Int. 2021 Sep;96(4):544–55.

Wiebracht ND, Zimmer LA. Complex anatomy of the sphenoid sinus: a radiographic study and literature review. J Neurol Surg B Skull Base. 2014 Dec;75(6):378–82.

Özer CM, Atalar K, Öz II, Toprak S, Barut Ç. Sphenoid Sinus in Relation to Age, Gender, and Cephalometric Indices. J Craniofac Surg. 2018 Nov;29(8):2319–26.

Pallanch JF, Yu L, Delone D, Robb R, Holmes DR 3rd, Camp J, et al. Three-dimensional volumetric computed tomographic scoring as an objective outcome measure for chronic rhinosinusitis: clinical correlations and comparison to Lund-Mackay scoring. Int Forum Allergy Rhinol. 2013 Dec;3(12):963–72.

Anon JB, Rontal M, James Zinreich S. Anatomy of the Paranasal Sinuses. Thieme Medical Publishers; 1996. 224 p.

Kim J, Song SW, Cho JH, Chang KH, Jun BC. Comparative study of the pneumatization of the mastoid air cells and paranasal sinuses using three-dimensional reconstruction of computed tomography scans. Surg Radiol Anat. 2010 Jul;32(6):593–9.

Cohen O, Warman M, Fried M, Shoffel-Havakuk H, Adi M, Halperin D, et al. Volumetric analysis of the maxillary, sphenoid and frontal sinuses: A comparative computerized tomography based study. Auris Nasus Larynx. 2018 Feb;45(1):96–102.

Gibelli D, Cellina M, Gibelli S, Oliva AG, Codari M, Termine G, et al. Volumetric assessment of sphenoid sinuses through segmentation on CT scan. Surg Radiol Anat. 2018 Feb;40(2):193–8.

Pirner S, Tingelhoff K, Wagner I, Westphal R, Rilk M, Wahl FM, et al. CT-based manual segmentation and evaluation of paranasal sinuses. Eur Arch Otorhinolaryngol. 2009 Apr;266(4):507–18.

Malta LA, Ortolani CF, Faltin K. Quantification of cranial base growth during pubertal growth. J Orthod. 2009 Dec;36(4):229–35.

Krieg WL. Early facial growth accelerations. A longitudinal study. Angle Orthod. 1987 Jan;57(1):50–62.

Vaid NR, Adel SM. Contemporary Orthodontic Workflows: A Panacea for Efficiency? Semin Orthod. 2023 Mar 1;29(1):1–3.

Pandian SM, Subramanian AK, Ravikumar PA, Adel SM. Biomaterial Testing in Contemporary Orthodontics: Scope, Protocol and Testing Apparatus. Semin Orthod. 2023 Mar 1;29(1):101–8.

Afrand M, Ling CP, Khosrotehrani S, Flores-Mir C, Lagravère-Vich MO. Anterior cranial-base time-related changes: A systematic review. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop. 2014 Jul;146(1):21–32.e6.

Cudia G, Michelizzi C. [Predispositions of the cranial base in the Delaire analysis]. Mondo Ortod. 1991 May-Jun;16(3):337–41.

Bastir M, Rosas A, O’higgins P. Craniofacial levels and the morphological maturation of the human skull. J Anat. 2006 Nov;209(5):637–54.

Dhopatkar A, Bhatia S, Rock P. An investigation into the relationship between the cranial base angle and malocclusion. Angle Orthod. 2002 Oct;72(5):456–63.

Coben SE. The spheno-occipital synchondrosis: the missing link between the profession’s concept of craniofacial growth and orthodontic treatment. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop. 1998 Dec;114(6):709–12; discussion 713–4.

Budiardjo SB, Karim AF, Indriati S, Wahono NA, Suharsini M, Fauziah E, et al. Length of anterior cranial base and Frankfort horizontal plane: A lateral cephalometric study in 11–16-year-old children. J Phys Conf Ser. 2018 Aug;1073:022014.

Sánchez Fernández JM, Anta Escuredo JA, Sánchez Del Rey A, Santaolalla Montoya F. Morphometric study of the paranasal sinuses in normal and pathological conditions. Acta Otolaryngol. 2000 Mar;120(2):273–8.

Singh GD, McNamara JA Jr, Lozanoff S. Finite element analysis of the cranial base in subjects with Class III malocclusion. Br J Orthod. 1997 May;24(2):103–12.

Kasai E, Kondo S, Kasai K. Morphological variation in the anterior cranial fossa. Clin Exp Dent Res. 2019 Apr;5(2):136–44.

Smith TD, McMahon MJ, Millen ME, Llera C, Engel SM, Li L, et al. Growth and Development at the Sphenoethmoidal Junction in Perinatal Primates. Anat Rec . 2017 Dec;300(12):2115–37.

Gong A, Li J, Wang Z, Li Y, Hu F, Li Q, et al. Cranial base characteristics in anteroposterior malocclusions: A meta-analysis. Angle Orthod. 2015 Nov 3;86(4):668–80.

Al Maaitah EF, Alomari S, Al-Khateeb SN, Abu Alhaija ES. Cranial base measurements in different anteroposterior skeletal relationships using Bjork-Jarabak analysis. Angle Orthod. 2022 Jun 20;92(5):613–8.