Upper Airway Dimensional Changes After Two and Four Premolar Extractions: A Retrospective Analytical Study
Premolar Extractions & Airway Space
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.70384/jlmdc.v2i02.87Keywords:
airway , nasopharyngeal airway, premolar extraction, orthodontic treatment , lateral cephalogramAbstract
Background: Upper airway space (UAS) structures play a significant role in the development of the craniofacial complex and are key parameters in orthodontic diagnosis and treatment planning. Airway space can be influenced by different extraction patterns.
Objective: To compare the effect on upper airway dimensions in orthodontic patients with two and four-premolar extraction patterns.
Methodology: The study was conducted in the Department of Orthodontics, Lahore Medical and Dental College, after approval from the Institutional Review Board and Ethical Committee, from January 2020 to December 2023. A total of 45 orthodontic patients aged 16–20 years with a dental Class II pattern and no significant medical history were included. All patients were treated with fixed orthodontic appliances. Standardized lateral cephalograms were traced manually on acetate paper, and nasopharyngeal airway dimensions were measured before and after orthodontic treatment. Descriptive statistics and paired t-tests were used to assess changes in pre and post-treatment values.
Results: There was an insignificant change in the values for PPW-PNS (the distance between the posterior pharyngeal wall and the posterior nasal spine) and PPW-S (the distance between the posterior pharyngeal wall and the soft palate) before and after treatment. No significant differences were observed in upper airway dimensions between patients treated with extraction of four premolars and those treated with extraction of two premolars. The average treatment duration was approximately 2.5 years.
Conclusion: Extraction of two or four premolars did not cause significant alterations in upper airway dimensions. Premolar extraction can therefore be considered safe in orthodontic treatment planning with respect to airway space.
References
1. Papageorgiou SN, Zyli M, Papadopoulou AK. Extraction of premolars in orthodontic treatment does not negatively affect upper airway volume and minimum cross-sectional area: a systematic review with meta-analysis. Eur J Orthod. 2025;47(2):cjaf012. doi: 10.1093/ejo/cjaf012.
2. Guo RZ, Li LW, Zhang LW, Yu QY, Huang YP, Li WR. Effect of premolar extraction on the upper airway in adult and adolescent orthodontic patients: a meta-analysis. Chin J Dent Res. 2023;26(1):35–45. doi:10.3290/j.cjdr.b3978679.
3. Fang MR, Yan XZ, Ni JL, Gu YG, Meng L, Yuan LC, et al. Study of pharyngeal airway morphology with CBCT: benefits of four premolar extraction orthodontic treatments. Niger J Clin Pract. 2022;25(12):1955–1962. doi: 10.4103/njcp.njcp_1815_21.
4. Mladenovic M, Freezer S, Dreyer C, Meade MJ. The orthodontic extraction of second premolars: the influence on airway volume. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop. 2024;166(1):61–68. doi:10.1016/j.ajodo.2024.02.013.
5. Steegman RM, Renkema AM, Schoeman A, Kuijpers Jagtman AM, Ren Y. Volumetric changes in the upper airway on CBCT after dentofacial orthopedic interventions. Clin Oral Investig. 2023;27:5737–5754. doi: 10.1007/s00784-023-05207-8.
6. Pop SI, Procopciuc A, Arsintescu B, Mițariu M, Mițariu L, Pop RV, et al. Three-dimensional assessment of upper airway volume and morphology in patients with different sagittal skeletal patterns. Diagnostics (Basel). 2024;14(9):903. doi.org/10.3390/diagnostics14090903.
7. Rodrigues J, Narkhede S, Patel K, Nair P, Agarwal S. Impact of Class II and Class III skeletal malocclusion on pharyngeal airway dimensions: a systematic literature review and meta-analysis. Heliyon. 2024;10(6):e27284. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.heliyon.2024.e27284.
8. Sharma K, Shrivastav S, Sharma N, Hotwani K, Murrell MD. Effects of first premolar extraction on airway dimensions in young adolescents: A retrospective cephalometric appraisal. Contemp Clin Dent. 2014;5(2):190–194. doi: 10.4103/0976-237X.132314.
9. Ning R, Guo J, Martin D. Effect of premolar extraction on upper airway volume and hyoid position in hyperdivergent adults with different mandibular length. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop. 2022;161(4):e390–e399. doi: 10.1016/j.ajodo.2021.01.027.
10. Nath M, Ahmed J, Ongole R, Denny C, Shenoy N. CBCT analysis of pharyngeal airway volume and comparison of airway volume among patients with skeletal Class I, Class II, and Class III malocclusion: a retrospective study. Cranio. 2019;39(5):379–390. doi: 10.1080/08869634.2019.1652993.
11. Brito FC, Brunetto DP, Nojima MCG. Three-dimensional study of the upper airway in different skeletal Class II malocclusion patterns. Angle Orthod. 2019;89(1):93–101. doi:10.2319/112117-806.1.
12. Zicari AM, Duse M, Occasi F, Luzzi V, Ortolani E, Bardanzellu F, et al. Cephalometric pattern and nasal patency in children with primary snoring: the evidence of a direct correlation. PLoS One. 2014;9(10):e111675. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0111675.
13. Deng J, Gao X. A case–control study of craniofacial features of children with obstructed sleep apnea. Sleep and Breathing. 2012;16:1219–1227. doi:10.1007/s11325-011-0636-4.
14. Germec-Cakan D, Taner T, Akan S. Uvulo-glossopharyngeal dimensions in non-extraction, extraction with minimum anchorage, and extraction with maximum anchorage. Eur J Orthod. 2011;33(5):515–520. doi: 10.1093/ejo/cjq109.
15. Karaman A, Güdük Z, Genc E. Evaluation of pharyngeal airway dimensions and cephalometric changes after premolar extraction and nonextraction orthodontic treatment in adolescent and adult patients. J Stomatol Oral Maxillofac Surg. 2023;124(1):101275. doi: 10.1016/j.jormas.2022.08.018.
16. Roedig JJ, Phillips BA, Morford LA, Van Sickels JE, Falcao-Alencar G, Fardo DW, et al. Comparison of BMI, AHI, and apolipoprotein E ε4 (APOE-ε4) alleles among sleep apnea patients with different skeletal classifications. J Sleep Med. 2014;10(4):397–402. doi.org/10.5664/jcsm.3614.
17. Alves PV, Zhao L, O'Gara M, Patel PK, Bolognese AM. Three-dimensional cephalometric study of upper airway space in skeletal class II and III healthy patients. J Craniofac Surg. 2008;19(6):1497–1507. doi: 10.1097/SCS.0b013e31818972ef.
18. Kim YJ, Hong JS, Hwang YI, Park YH. Three-dimensional analysis of pharyngeal airway in preadolescent children with different anteroposterior skeletal patterns. Am J Orthod Dentofac Orthop. 2010;306.e1–11; discussion 306–7. doi: 10.1016/j.ajodo.2009.10.025.
19. Diwakar R, Kochhar AS, Gupta H, Kaur H, Sidhu MS, Skountrianos H, et al. Effect of Craniofacial Morphology on Pharyngeal Airway Volume Measured Using Cone-Beam Computed Tomography (CBCT). A Retrospective Pilot Study. Int J Environ Res Public Health. 2021;18:5040. https://doi.org/10.3390/ijerph18095040.
20. Vejwarakul W, Ko EW, Lin CH. Evaluation of pharyngeal airway space after orthodontic extraction treatment in Class II malocclusion integrating with the subjective sleep quality assessment. Sci Rep. 2023;13(1):9210. doi: 10.1038/s41598-023-36467-9.
21. Golchini E, Rasoolijazi H, Momeni F, Shafaat P, Ahadi R, Jafarabadi MA, et al. Investigation of the relationship between mandibular morphology and upper airway dimensions. J Craniofac Surg. 2020;31(5):1353–1361. doi: 10.1097/SCS.0000000000006341.
Downloads
Published
How to Cite
Issue
Section
License
Copyright (c) 2025 Maira Mubashar , Asma Shafique, hafiz Muhammad Ali Jameel, Maleeha Mustafa, Fizza Tahir, Mariyah Javed
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.
.