Cargando…

Craniofacial Morphology and Upper Airway Dimensions in Patients with Hypermobile Ehlers-Danlos Syndrome Compared to Healthy Controls

OBJECTIVES: The aims of the present case-control study were to compare craniofacial morphology, airway minimum cross-sectional area and airway volume between patients with hypermobile Ehlers-Danlos syndrome and healthy controls. MATERIAL AND METHODS: The sample comprised 18 hypermobile Ehlers-Danlos...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Sonnesen, Liselotte, Pawlik, Tessie, Lauridsen, Eva Fejerskov
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: Stilus Optimus 2021
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC8326884/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/34377382
http://dx.doi.org/10.5037/jomr.2021.12205
Descripción
Sumario:OBJECTIVES: The aims of the present case-control study were to compare craniofacial morphology, airway minimum cross-sectional area and airway volume between patients with hypermobile Ehlers-Danlos syndrome and healthy controls. MATERIAL AND METHODS: The sample comprised 18 hypermobile Ehlers-Danlos syndrome (hEDS) patients (16 females, 2 males, mean age 34.1 [SD 10.35] years), clinically diagnosed and genetically tested in order to exclude other types of EDS, and 16 controls (14 females, 2 males, mean age 37.9 [SD 10.87] years) with neutral occlusion and normal craniofacial morphology. Craniofacial morphology was assessed on lateral cephalograms. Minimum cross-sectional area and upper airway volume were assessed on cone-beam computed tomography and analysed by standard and well-validated methods. Differences were tested by logistic regression analysis adjusted for age, gender and body mass index (BMI). RESULTS: No significant differences in craniofacial morphology were found between hEDS patients and controls. Airway minimum cross-sectional area (P = 0.019) and airway volume (P = 0.044) were significantly smaller in hEDS patients compared to controls. When adjusted for age, gender and BMI no significant differences were found. However, minimum cross-sectional area was almost significant (P = 0.077). CONCLUSIONS: The craniofacial morphology and airway dimensions of hypermobile Ehlers-Danlos syndrome patients were comparable to controls, with a tendency towards a smaller minimum cross-sectional area in the hypermobile Ehlers-Danlos syndrome group. The results may prove valuable for understanding the effect of hypermobile Ehlers-Danlos syndrome on craniofacial morphology and the upper airways.