Liselotte Sonnesen, Tessie Pawlik, Eva Fejerskov Lauridsen
{"title":"Craniofacial Morphology and Upper Airway Dimensions in Patients with Hypermobile Ehlers-Danlos Syndrome Compared to Healthy Controls.","authors":"Liselotte Sonnesen, Tessie Pawlik, Eva Fejerskov Lauridsen","doi":"10.5037/jomr.2021.12205","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Objectives: </strong>The aims of the present case-control study were to compare craniofacial morphology, airway minimum cross-sectional area and airway volume between patients with hypermobile Ehlers-Danlos syndrome and healthy controls.</p><p><strong>Material and methods: </strong>The sample comprised 18 hypermobile Ehlers-Danlos syndrome (hEDS) patients (16 females, 2 males, mean age 34.1 [SD 10.35] years), clinically diagnosed and genetically tested in order to exclude other types of EDS, and 16 controls (14 females, 2 males, mean age 37.9 [SD 10.87] years) with neutral occlusion and normal craniofacial morphology. Craniofacial morphology was assessed on lateral cephalograms. Minimum cross-sectional area and upper airway volume were assessed on cone-beam computed tomography and analysed by standard and well-validated methods. Differences were tested by logistic regression analysis adjusted for age, gender and body mass index (BMI).</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>No significant differences in craniofacial morphology were found between hEDS patients and controls. Airway minimum cross-sectional area (P = 0.019) and airway volume (P = 0.044) were significantly smaller in hEDS patients compared to controls. When adjusted for age, gender and BMI no significant differences were found. However, minimum cross-sectional area was almost significant (P = 0.077).</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>The craniofacial morphology and airway dimensions of hypermobile Ehlers-Danlos syndrome patients were comparable to controls, with a tendency towards a smaller minimum cross-sectional area in the hypermobile Ehlers-Danlos syndrome group. The results may prove valuable for understanding the effect of hypermobile Ehlers-Danlos syndrome on craniofacial morphology and the upper airways.</p>","PeriodicalId":53254,"journal":{"name":"eJournal of Oral Maxillofacial Research","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":1.0000,"publicationDate":"2021-06-30","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://ftp.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pub/pmc/oa_pdf/c2/ac/jomr-12-e5.PMC8326884.pdf","citationCount":"1","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"eJournal of Oral Maxillofacial Research","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.5037/jomr.2021.12205","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2021/4/1 0:00:00","PubModel":"eCollection","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"DENTISTRY, ORAL SURGERY & MEDICINE","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 1
Abstract
Objectives: The aims of the present case-control study were to compare craniofacial morphology, airway minimum cross-sectional area and airway volume between patients with hypermobile Ehlers-Danlos syndrome and healthy controls.
Material and methods: The sample comprised 18 hypermobile Ehlers-Danlos syndrome (hEDS) patients (16 females, 2 males, mean age 34.1 [SD 10.35] years), clinically diagnosed and genetically tested in order to exclude other types of EDS, and 16 controls (14 females, 2 males, mean age 37.9 [SD 10.87] years) with neutral occlusion and normal craniofacial morphology. Craniofacial morphology was assessed on lateral cephalograms. Minimum cross-sectional area and upper airway volume were assessed on cone-beam computed tomography and analysed by standard and well-validated methods. Differences were tested by logistic regression analysis adjusted for age, gender and body mass index (BMI).
Results: No significant differences in craniofacial morphology were found between hEDS patients and controls. Airway minimum cross-sectional area (P = 0.019) and airway volume (P = 0.044) were significantly smaller in hEDS patients compared to controls. When adjusted for age, gender and BMI no significant differences were found. However, minimum cross-sectional area was almost significant (P = 0.077).
Conclusions: The craniofacial morphology and airway dimensions of hypermobile Ehlers-Danlos syndrome patients were comparable to controls, with a tendency towards a smaller minimum cross-sectional area in the hypermobile Ehlers-Danlos syndrome group. The results may prove valuable for understanding the effect of hypermobile Ehlers-Danlos syndrome on craniofacial morphology and the upper airways.