ArticleThe Angle orthodontist2024
Assessment of maximal inspiratory and expiratory pressures in skeletal Class II patients with different growth patterns.
Article in The Angle orthodontist, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
1 citing paper in PubMed, 1 citations in OpenAlex.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectivesTo evaluate maximal inspiratory (MIP) and expiratory (MEP) pressures, which are reflective of respiratory muscle strength, in skeletal Class II patients with different growth patterns (horizontal, average, and vertical) and to correlate those with airway dimension. MATERIALS AND
methodsPatients with a Class II skeletal base seeking orthodontic treatment were assigned to the following groups: average, horizontal, and vertical growth pattern. The control group (n = 14) comprised patients with a Class I skeletal base and average growth pattern. Airway dimensions were obtained using cone-beam computed tomography scans, and a spirometer with a pressure transducer was used for assessment of MIP and MEP. Routine spirometry for assessment of lung function was also performed.
resultsNo significant differences were found in maximal inspiratory and expiratory pressures for the study groups in comparison with the control group. Class I patients had significantly greater oropharyngeal and nasopharyngeal airway volumes compared with the study groups. No significant difference in minimal cross-section area of the airway was observed among groups. A weak positive correlation between maximal inspiratory pressure and airway volume was observed.
conclusionsAlthough Class I patients displayed significantly greater oropharyngeal and nasopharyngeal airway volumes, there was no significant difference in respiratory muscle strength or airway function between Class II patients with different growth patterns and the Class I control group. The findings underscore the significance of exploring factors beyond craniofacial growth patterns that may contribute to sleep-related breathing disorders.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.