↓ Skip to main content

A retrospective cephalometric study on upper airway spaces in different facial types

Overview of attention for article published in Progress in Orthodontics, August 2017
Altmetric Badge

Mentioned by

facebook
1 Facebook page

Citations

dimensions_citation
16 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
67 Mendeley
Title
A retrospective cephalometric study on upper airway spaces in different facial types
Published in
Progress in Orthodontics, August 2017
DOI 10.1186/s40510-017-0180-2
Pubmed ID
Authors

Roselaine Sprenger, Luciano Augusto Cano Martins, Júlio Cesar Bento dos Santos, Carolina Carmo de Menezes, Giovana Cherubini Venezian, Viviane Veroni Degan

Abstract

Craniofacial growth pattern has been correlated with variations in size of the upper airway spaces. The objective of this study was to evaluate the nasopharyngeal, oropharyngeal, and hypopharyngeal airway spaces variations according to the craniofacial growth pattern, by comparing brachyfacial, mesofacial, and dolichofacial in Angle Class I individuals. To measure the spaces, 45 lateral teleradiographs were used and divided into 3 groups per the craniofacial growth pattern, determined by the Tweed cephalometry angular measurements: FMA and Y-axis. To evaluate the airways, sleep apnea cephalometry was used, containing 28 points that compose 14 factors. Three groups were compared relative to each of the 14 sleep apnea cephalometry measurements. Adherence test to the normal curve was performed. For the non-normally distributed data-measurement of the inferior pharyngeal space-the Kruskal-Wallis test was used for comparison between the groups. For the remaining data, the distribution was normal and ANOVA test was used. Statistically significant difference was verified among the groups for the measurement of the median posterior-palatal space, with the difference being pointed out by the post hoc test between the brachyfacial and dolichofacial groups. For the other measurements, there was no statistically significant difference. It could be concluded that there was difference in the median posterior-palatal space measurement, in the oropharynx region, which was reduced for individuals with a dolichofacial pattern.

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 67 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 67 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Postgraduate 12 18%
Student > Master 12 18%
Student > Bachelor 7 10%
Student > Ph. D. Student 4 6%
Unspecified 3 4%
Other 14 21%
Unknown 15 22%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 43 64%
Unspecified 3 4%
Nursing and Health Professions 2 3%
Linguistics 1 1%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 1 1%
Other 1 1%
Unknown 16 24%

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 1. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 21 August 2017.
All research outputs
#20,444,703
of 22,999,744 outputs
Outputs from Progress in Orthodontics
#203
of 234 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#277,335
of 317,628 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Progress in Orthodontics
#9
of 11 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,999,744 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 1st percentile – i.e., 1% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 234 research outputs from this source. They receive a mean Attention Score of 2.6. This one is in the 1st percentile – i.e., 1% of its peers scored the same or lower than it.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 317,628 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 1st percentile – i.e., 1% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 11 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 1st percentile – i.e., 1% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.