English (United Kingdom)

https://curated-unify.zendy.io/wp-json/zendy-region/v1/featured_content/oa?rat=en

https://curated-unify.zendy.io/wp-json/zendy-region/v1/highlighted_journal/

Global: Zendy Plus annual

Presents the access of premium content as premium feature

Premium Content

Presents the keyphrase highlighting as premium feature

Keyphrase Highlighting

Presents the summarisation as premium feature

Summarisation

Insights

Presents the pdf analysis as premium feature

PDF Analysis

Presents the zaia usage as premium feature

ZAIA

Global: Zendy Tools annual

Global: Zendy Free Plan

Global: Zendy Tools monthly

Global: Zendy Plus monthly

Ab s t r Ac t Aim and objective: To compare the airway morphology and volume in skeletal class I and class II patients of ages ranging from 14 to 20 years. Materials and methods: This retrospective study used cone-beam computed tomography (CBCT) scans of 60 patients in natural head position. Patients were classified into skeletal Class I and Class II based on ANB value and Witt’s appraisal. CBCT data was in Digital Imaging and Communications in Medicine (DICOM) format and 3D data and 3D coordinate system were constructed using Dolphin 3D software and airways were analyzed. Results: Class I skeletal pattern patients had more airway volume (mean = 20733.2 mm3) than patients with class II skeletal pattern (mean = 19032.2 mm3), but the results were not statistically significant. Conclusion: Skeletal class I and class II samples showed “wide” type of airway morphology with skeletal class II patients having more width to depth ratio compared to skeletal class I patients. Airways in class II patients are smaller anteroposteriorly compared to airways of class I patients. Clinical significance: In this era of airway-centric treatment planning, this study is a stepping stone for understanding the uniqueness and diversity of airway among different individuals and thus plan orthodontic treatment holistically so as to minimize treatment relapse.

Comparison of Airway Morphology and Volume in Skeletal Class I and Class II Patients Using Cone-beam Computed Tomography: A Cross-sectional Study