Both the Observer's Expertise and the Subject's Facial Symmetry Can Affect Anatomical Position of the Head

Does Head and Neck Posture Affect Cone-Beam Computed Tomography Assessment of the Upper Airway?

PURPOSE

Radiographic analysis is often used as a screening tool to assess for risk of sleep-related breathing disorders. This study aimed to address 2 questions: (1) Does head posture significantly affect the minimum cross-sectional area (MCA)? and (2) Is the NBC3 (nasion-basion-C3) angle a reliable measurement to control for alteration of head position in cone-beam computed tomography (CBCT) scans?

METHODS

Study design: prospective cohort study.

SETTING

Private practices affiliated with a research institution.

PARTICIPANTS

convenience sample of adult volunteers.

VARIABLES

CBCT scans were taken in 2 conditions: baseline (natural head position, NHP) and 1 of 5 experimental conditions (head tilted up, head tilted down, sitting vs standing, use of chin-rest, and swallow variation). For the primary aim of our study, the primary predictor variable was head posture and the main outcome variable was percentage change in MCA. For the secondary aim, the primary predictor variable was head posture and the main outcome variable was degree change in NBC3 angle.

RESULTS

Ninety subjects were included (age 40.7 ± 13.7 years, 70% female). Mean NBC3 at baseline was 112.4 ± 8.3°. Head tilted down significantly decreased (-41.4 ± 18.5 mm², P = .03∗) and head tilted up significantly increased MCA (+147.4 ± 43.3 mm², P = .0018∗). Head tilted down significantly reduced the NBC3 angle measurement (-10.5 ± 6.8°, P = .006) and head tilted up significantly increased the NBC3 angle measurement (+14.4 ± 5.8°, P = .0004). A quadratic regression model was fitted with moderately strong correlation (R² = 0.54) showing an exponential effect of small changes in the NBC3 angle on MCA, P < .0001. The model predicts that increasing NBC3 by +5 and + 10° resulted in MCA changes of +25% and +88%, whereas a decrease in NBC3 by -5 and -10° results in MCA changes of -21% and -23%, respectively.

CONCLUSION

Alterations in head posture significantly affect the MCA of the upper airway on CBCT. The NBC3 angle can be used to reliably assess changes in cranio-cervical extension and validate comparisons of MCA between CBCT scans for the same patient. A standardized protocol for CBCT acquisition is proposed.

Midsagittal Plane First: Building a Strong Facial Reference Frame for Computer-Aided Surgical Simulation

PURPOSE

A facial reference frame is a 3-dimensional Cartesian coordinate system that includes 3 perpendicular planes: midsagittal, axial, and coronal. The order in which one defines the planes matters. The purposes of this study are to determine the following: 1) what sequence (axial-midsagittal-coronal vs midsagittal-axial-coronal) produced more appropriate reference frames and 2) whether orbital or auricular dystopia influenced the outcomes.

METHODS

This study is an ambispective cross-sectional study. Fifty-four subjects with facial asymmetry were included. The facial reference frames of each subject (outcome variable) were constructed using 2 methods (independent variable): axial plane first and midsagittal plane first. Two board-certified orthodontists together blindly evaluated the results using a 3-point categorical scale based on their careful inspection and expert intuition. The covariant for stratification was the existence of orbital or auricular dystopia. Finally, Wilcoxon signed rank tests were performed.

RESULTS

The facial reference frames defined by the midsagittal plane first method was statistically significantly different from ones defined by the axial plane first method (P = .001). Using the midsagittal plane first method, the reference frames were more appropriately defined in 22 (40.7%) subjects, equivalent in 26 (48.1%) and less appropriately defined in 6 (11.1%). After stratified by orbital or auricular dystopia, the results also showed that the reference frame computed using midsagittal plane first method was statistically significantly more appropriate in both subject groups regardless of the existence of orbital or auricular dystopia (27 with orbital or auricular dystopia and 27 without, both P < .05).

CONCLUSIONS

The midsagittal plane first sequence improves the facial reference frames compared with the traditional axial plane first approach. However, regardless of the sequence used, clinicians need to judge the correctness of the reference frame before diagnosis or surgical planning.