{"title":"Three-dimensional cone beam computed tomography analysis of craniofacial phenotype in nonobese apneic young adults","authors":"Mathilde Jadoul DDS, Adelin Albert PhD, Nathalie Maes MSc, Robert Poirrier MD, PhD, Anne-Lise Poirrier MD, PhD, Annick Bruwier DDS, PhD","doi":"10.1002/lio2.70061","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<div>\n \n \n <section>\n \n <h3> Objective</h3>\n \n <p>The obstructive sleep apnea (OSA) syndrome with its various phenotypes, as assessed by the apnea-hypopnea index (AHI), has become a major public health issue. While physicians are regularly faced with a variety of patients with OSA complaints, they may not be aware that OSA in nonobese young adults remains a largely underinvestigated topic. It is hypothesized that, in these subjects, facial bone volumes are smaller than in healthy adults.</p>\n </section>\n \n <section>\n \n <h3> Methods</h3>\n \n <p>This cross-sectional, nonrandomized, controlled study was designed to compare the 3D cephalometric analysis of bone and craniofacial soft tissues in a group of 23 nonobese apneic (AHI ≥ 15), young (18–35 years) adults and in a control group of 23 nonapneic (AHI < 15) healthy subjects by using cone beam computed tomography (CBCT). All subjects were Caucasian and underwent a sleep examination in the Sleep Clinic of the University Hospital of Liege.</p>\n </section>\n \n <section>\n \n <h3> Results</h3>\n \n <p>The two groups were comparable except for age and medications. The maxillary bone volume (23.2 ± 4.6 cm<sup>3</sup> vs. 24.8 ± 2.9 cm<sup>3</sup>) and the mandibular bone volume (44.0 ± 6.4 cm<sup>3</sup> vs. 46.9 ± 5.2 cm<sup>3</sup>) adjusted for demographic and biometric characteristics were significantly smaller in OSA subjects than in controls. OSA subjects had also a smaller angle of the maxillary diagonals (95.3 ± 13.9° vs. 106 ± 15.9°) and, at the mandible, a narrower width (90.8 ± 8.0 mm vs. 95.1 ± 5.3 mm), a wider gonial angle (119.9 ± 5.5° vs. 116.5 ± 4.4°), a longer ramus (51.2 ± 6.6 mm vs. 47.3 ± 5.0 mm), and a shorter corpus (74.1 ± 10.3 mm vs. 78.9 ± 5.8 mm) than controls.</p>\n </section>\n \n <section>\n \n <h3> Conclusion</h3>\n \n <p>Craniofacial structures that most discerned apneic subjects from controls were the maxillary and mandible bone volumes. An overly narrow maxilla and a postero-rotating mandible were also associated with OSA.</p>\n </section>\n \n <section>\n \n <h3> Level of Evidence</h3>\n \n <p>III.</p>\n </section>\n \n <section>\n \n <h3> Registration</h3>\n \n <p>NCT06022679.</p>\n </section>\n </div>","PeriodicalId":48529,"journal":{"name":"Laryngoscope Investigative Otolaryngology","volume":"10 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":1.6000,"publicationDate":"2025-01-31","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC11783401/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Laryngoscope Investigative Otolaryngology","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/lio2.70061","RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"OTORHINOLARYNGOLOGY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0
Abstract
Objective
The obstructive sleep apnea (OSA) syndrome with its various phenotypes, as assessed by the apnea-hypopnea index (AHI), has become a major public health issue. While physicians are regularly faced with a variety of patients with OSA complaints, they may not be aware that OSA in nonobese young adults remains a largely underinvestigated topic. It is hypothesized that, in these subjects, facial bone volumes are smaller than in healthy adults.
Methods
This cross-sectional, nonrandomized, controlled study was designed to compare the 3D cephalometric analysis of bone and craniofacial soft tissues in a group of 23 nonobese apneic (AHI ≥ 15), young (18–35 years) adults and in a control group of 23 nonapneic (AHI < 15) healthy subjects by using cone beam computed tomography (CBCT). All subjects were Caucasian and underwent a sleep examination in the Sleep Clinic of the University Hospital of Liege.
Results
The two groups were comparable except for age and medications. The maxillary bone volume (23.2 ± 4.6 cm3 vs. 24.8 ± 2.9 cm3) and the mandibular bone volume (44.0 ± 6.4 cm3 vs. 46.9 ± 5.2 cm3) adjusted for demographic and biometric characteristics were significantly smaller in OSA subjects than in controls. OSA subjects had also a smaller angle of the maxillary diagonals (95.3 ± 13.9° vs. 106 ± 15.9°) and, at the mandible, a narrower width (90.8 ± 8.0 mm vs. 95.1 ± 5.3 mm), a wider gonial angle (119.9 ± 5.5° vs. 116.5 ± 4.4°), a longer ramus (51.2 ± 6.6 mm vs. 47.3 ± 5.0 mm), and a shorter corpus (74.1 ± 10.3 mm vs. 78.9 ± 5.8 mm) than controls.
Conclusion
Craniofacial structures that most discerned apneic subjects from controls were the maxillary and mandible bone volumes. An overly narrow maxilla and a postero-rotating mandible were also associated with OSA.