ArticleBMC oral health2026
Computational fluid dynamics simulation of upper airway flow and soft tissue deformation in a mouth-breathing patient: a case study.
Article in BMC oral health, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
7 authors.
Funding
Abstract
objectiveThe primary objective of this study was to establish a three-dimensional fluid-structure interaction (FSI) model to compare the biomechanical effects of three distinct breathing modes-nasal (NA), oronasal (ONA), and oral (OA) ventilation-on upper airway dynamics in mouth-breathing patients. A key aim was to investigate a potential biomechanical link between mode-specific hydrodynamic forces and the soft tissue remodeling associated with adenoidal facies.
methodsMouth-breathing volunteer was selected, and cone-beam computed tomography (CBCT) and magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) images were collected. Subsequently,3D (Three-Dimensional) finite element models of the upper airway, oral airway, soft palate, and tongue body were reconstructed. Numerical simulations of the flow fields of the three different breathing modes, named nasal ventilation, oral nose ventilation, and oral ventilation, were performed using finite element analysis software.
resultsThe simulations revealed distinct, mode-specific biomechanical environments. Oral breathing (OA) generated significantly higher airflow velocity and stronger negative pressure in the palatopharyngeal and epiglottic regions compared to nasal and oronasal breathing. This led to pronounced posterior-inferior displacement of the tongue and increased deformation of the soft palate. In contrast, nasal breathing produced turbulence confined primarily to the nasal cavity. The model successfully captured the transition to turbulent flow in the pharynx during oral breathing.
conclusionThis preliminary simulation suggests that, within the constraints of our model, oral breathing is associated with increased airflow velocity, higher negative pressure in the palatopharyngeal and epiglottic regions, and a greater posterior displacement of the tongue. These factors may collectively increase the susceptibility to pharyngeal airway collapse.
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.