Background
Chronic rhinitis, hypertrophy of the adenoid, palatine tonsils and deviated nasal septum are the frequent cause of upper respiratory obstruction, which forces children to breathe through their mouths [
1]. Researches showed that mouth breathing incidence in children was 17–50% [
2,
3]. Abnormal breathing patterns of mouth breathing leads to posteroinferior rotation of the mandible, inducing a prolonged imbalance of oropharynx muscle activity. Cranial and maxillofacial muscles produce a series of adaptive alterations, affecting the jaw's growth and development and leading to malocclusion [
4,
5].
The craniofacial characteristics such as anterior overbite, deep overjet, poor lip seal, mandibular retrusion, and airway stenosis tend to worsen with the dentofacial growth of children with mouth breathing [
6]. Stahl et al. investigated the relationship between cervical bone maturity and mandibular growth to infer that craniofacial growth in subjects with untreated Class II malocclusion had significantly smaller increases in mandibular length at the growth spurt and during the overall observation period [
7]. Facial profile changes, the diagnosis of jaw bone disharmony, the most suitable intervention or treatment time, and the stability of the curative effect depend heavily on the growth characteristics and growth spurt of the maxilla and mandible. Therefore, understanding maxillofacial development and morphological characteristics in different stages is of great significance to the treatment planning, the control of tissue reconstruction, and the long-term prognosis. Luca [
8] et al. took a cephalometric comparison about skeletal and dental features in ninety-eight children aged 7–12 years old who were split into two groups: mouth breathing secondary to nasal septum deviation and nasal breathing controls, finding that mouth breathing children displayed an increase of palatal height and overjet and upper and lower anterior facial height, a significantly retrognathic position of the maxilla and mandible, and the narrow of maxillary intermolar width. In addition, it was proposed that most mouth breathing children presented a class II skeletal malocclusion and cross-bite occurred more frequently than in the nasal breathing children. This is consistent with the traditional view that the facial type of mouth breathing children is mostly manifested as maxillary protrusion, mandibular retraction.
Helena [
9], Isabel [
10], Maria [
11‐
13], Sara [
14] et al., studied the influence of mouth breathing caused by upper respiratory tract obstruction, such as allergic rhinitis, nasal obstruction, adenoid/tonsil hypertrophy on maxillofacial development in children. Compared with the nasal breathing children, mouth breathing children showed the statistical insignificance of SN-PP and the increase of PP-MP, SN-MP, SN-OP, which reflected the minor secondary effect on maxilla, the occlusal plane steepened and the posteroinferior rotation of the mandible. The values of SPAS, PAS and other airway indicators in the mouth breathing group were decreased, indicating that airway stenosis was caused by mouth breathing in the process of posterior rotation of mandible.
The influence of mouth breathing on the maxillofacial development is still unsettled. The research results on the effects of mouth breathing on the anterior lower height of the face and the position of the maxilla [
10,
15‐
17]. Contrary to previous studies [
1,
18], Bernardo [
19] et al. proposed that the ANB Angle of mouth breathing children was significantly larger than that of nasal breathing controls in both primary dentition and mixed dentition, while the SNB Angle decreased. Doron [
20] et al. proposed that retrusive mandible in mouth breathing children was mainly manifested by deepened overjet and SNB Angle, which was inconsistent with Bernardo's results.
Compared with chronological age, skeletal age can more accurately reflect individual growth and maturity [
21‐
23]. Maturational stages refer to specific developmental events identified on hand-wrist or cervical x-rays that relate directly to the progression of maturation during childhood and adolescence. Each progressive stage represents an increasing percentage of total facial skeletal growth completed. Although cervical vertebrae x-rays do not allow for such definitive evaluation as hand-wrist x-rays, the cervical vertebra maturity assessment system has a unique advantage that cephalometric radiographs are routine for orthodontic analysis and treatment planning avoiding additional X-ray exposure [
24]. Hassel and Farman [
25], Garcia-Fernandez et al. [
26] have reported that cervical vertebral maturation analysis was comparable to hand-wrist analysis for assessing skeletal maturity, and it had high reliability and validity. And the variation of the cervical vertebra ossification center is more obvious to observe in the development period due to its fewer amount [
27].
Due to the ongoing controversy and the lack of cervical vertebral maturation method in the effects of mouth breathing on maxillofacial and airway development, in this cross-sectional study, we made the statistical comparisons for cephalometric measurements to explore the craniofacial and airway growth changes in children and adolescents with mouth breathing, as defined by the cervical vertebral maturation method. Our study has three null hypotheses. The first null hypothesis is’mouth breathing affects the maxillofacial hard tissue development throughout all the growth and development period (for the cervical vertebrae maturation [CVM] method)’. The second null hypothesis is ‘mouth breathing affects the maxillofacial soft tissue development throughout all the growth and development period (for the cervical vertebrae maturation [CVM] method)’. The third null hypothesis is’mouth breathing affects the airway development throughout all the growth and development period (for the cervical vertebrae maturation [CVM] method)’.
Results
According to the cervical vertebral maturation assessment, there were 45 CS1 cases, 33 CS2 cases, 21 CS3 cases, 9 CS4 cases, 12 CS5 cases, and 0 case of CS6.
Maxillofacial hard tissue measurements
As shown in Table
2, SNB, GoGn and ArGoNa from CS1 through CS5 were below the standard values and had statistical significance. The measured values of ArGo and SNA were below the standard values and were statistically significant, only in CS1 and CS2 stages. The measured values of NGoMe (interval CS1–CS5), SN-MP (interval CS1–CS4), SN-PP (interval CS1–CS4), PP-MP (interval CS1–CS3) and SN-GoGn (interval CS1–CS2) were above the standard values and statistically significant. There was no statistical significance in other hard tissue measurements indexes of the maxillofacial region.
Table 2
Measurements of hard tissue indexes at different cervical vertebral maturation stage
SNA | 79.75 ± 3.42 | 0.000 | 80.73 ± 2.36 | 0.004 | 81.60 ± 2.76 | 0.512 | 80.13 ± 3.67 | 0.165 | 81..00 ± 2.64 | 0.215 |
SNB | 74.69 ± 5.05 | 0.000 | 74.59 ± 4.70 | 0.000 | 75.82 ± 5.51 | 0000 | 76.40 ± 3.18 | 0.003 | 78.21 ± 3.78 | 0.031 |
ANB | 4.53 ± 2.27 | 0.000 | 5.36 ± 1.97 | 0.000 | 5.72 ± 5.20 | 0.027 | 3.73 ± 2.91 | 0.473 | 2.81 ± 1.72 | 0.715 |
Y | 71.83 ± 4.79 | 0.000 | 72.22 ± 2.91 | 0.000 | 70.28 ± 5.45 | 0.012 | 72.56 ± 3.14 | 0.001 | 70.29 ± 4.07 | 0.017 |
SN-MP | 39.13 ± 4.79 | 0.000 | 39.16 ± 4.36 | 0.000 | 36.94 ± 3.46 | 0.000 | 37.63 ± 3.85 | 0.007 | 35.43 ± 7.49 | 0.286 |
FH-MP | 29.69 ± 4.21 | 0.000 | 29.82 ± 3.85 | 0.000 | 29.21 ± 3.88 | 0.001 | 28.33 ± 3,78 | 0.090 | 27.64 ± 6.76 | 0.393 |
SN-Ar | 123.80 ± 5.23 | 0.796 | 124.42 ± 5.16 | 0.647 | 120.93 ± 9.10 | 0.137 | 123.52 ± 6.26 | 0.825 | 118.47 ± 11.47 | 0.123 |
SArGo | 151.01 ± 5.67 | 0.000 | 150.44 ± 6.12 | 0.000 | 152.65 ± 5.27 | 0.000 | 153.00 ± 4.78 | 0.001 | 152.86 ± 4.04 | 0.000 |
ArGo | 34.57 ± 3.41 | 0.000 | 35.29 ± 3.53 | 0.000 | 37.72 ± 3.97 | 0.083 | 38.61 ± 4.62 | 0.665 | 39.75 ± 4.62 | 0.742 |
PP-MP | 28.72 ± 4.83 | 0.000 | 29.84 ± 4.53 | 0.000 | 27.91 ± 4.16 | 0.004 | 27.20 ± 4.34 | 0.167 | 25.27 ± 6.48 | 0.887 |
SN-PP | 10.48 ± 2.69 | 0.000 | 9.32 ± 3.08 | 0.019 | 8.95 ± 1.89 | 0.032 | 9.44 ± 0.68 | 0.000 | 10.13 ± 3.53 | 0.060 |
SN-GoGn | 36.4215 ± 4.75 | 0.000 | 36.43 ± 4.13 | 0.000 | 34.23 ± 3.47 | 0.119 | 34.96 ± 3.85 | 0.165 | 32.85 ± 7.31 | 0.944 |
ArGoNa | 47.68 ± 3.99 | 0.000 | 48.18 ± 3.95 | 0.000 | 46.37 ± 3.87 | 0.000 | 45.62 ± 3.77 | 0.000 | 45.85 ± 3.82 | 0.000 |
NaGoMe | 76.64 ± 4.62 | 0.000 | 76.07 ± 4.79 | 0.000 | 75.12 ± 4.65 | 0.000 | 75.21 ± 4.84 | 0.009 | 75.43 ± 6.19 | 0.008 |
GoGn | 65.41 ± 5.60 | 0.000 | 65.65 ± 7.22 | 0.000 | 69.49 ± 6.90 | 0.001 | 67.34 ± 9.91 | 0.041 | 71.33 ± 4.5 | 0.010 |
Maxillofacial soft tissue measurements
As shown in Table
3, among soft tissue measurement indexes, H angle, lower lip length and upper lip protrusion were above the standard values with statistically significance from CS1 through CS5. The upper lip length (interval CS1–CS4), the lower lip protrusion (interval CS1–CS3), and surface Angle (interval CS2–CS3) were above the standard values with statistical significance. The nasolabial angle was above the standard value with statistical significance in the CS2 stage.
Table 3
Measurements of soft tissue indexes at different cervical vertebral maturation stage
Surface angle | 14.72 ± 9.79 | 0.069 | 16.5274 ± 6.92 | 0.001 | 15.88 ± 6.35 | 0.011 | 15.82 ± 7.38 | 0.159 | 11.07 ± 4.74 | 0.511 |
Nasolabial angle | 103.2193 ± 8.25 | 0.327 | 97.70 ± 11.12 | 0.034 | 102.44 ± 10.65 | 0.852 | 96.73 ± 15.43 | 0.335 | 101.30 ± 8.17 | 0.773 |
Upper lip protrusion | 7.02 ± 1.85 | 0.000 | 9.62 ± 8.39 | 0.000 | 8.76 ± 6.51 | 0.001 | 11.23 ± 10.27 | 0.043 | 6.31 ± 1.62 | 0.000 |
Lower lip protrusion | 5.72 ± 2.50 | 0.000 | 6.31 ± 1.84 | 0.000 | 6.27 ± 2.25 | 0.000 | 6.29 ± 3.34 | 0.097 | 5.27 ± 2.62 | 0.185 |
Upper lip length | 18.73 ± 1.75 | 0.000 | 19.31 ± 1.74 | 0.000 | 19.82 ± 1.92 | 0.001 | 20.49 ± 2.54 | 0.268 | 19.6.9 ± 2.14 | 0.014 |
Lower lip length | 38.47 ± 3.90 | 0.000 | 39.23 ± 4.10 | 0.000 | 40.84 ± 4.93 | 0.000 | 40.89 ± 4.77 | 0.005 | 4208 ± 4.66 | 0.004 |
H angle | 20.30 ± 4.24 | 0.000 | 21.48 ± 3.36 | 0.000 | 21.28 ± 2.90 | 0.000 | 20.61 ± 5.50 | 0.000 | 17.93 ± 3.71 | 0.000 |
PAS | 11.95 ± 3.77 | 0.001 | 12.26 ± 3.21 | 0.000 | 11.27 ± 3.82 | 0.144 | 11.04 ± 3.18 | 0.354 | 11.96 ± 2.69 | 0.028 |
Airway measurements
As shown in Table
4, PAS was above the standard value with statistical significance in CS1, CS2 and CS5. Regarding gender, the male PNS-UPW was below the standard value with statistically significance from CS1 to CS3, and the male U-MPW was above the standard value with statistically significance only in CS2. The male V-LPW was not statistically significant in the whole stage. The female PNS-UPW was below the standard value with statistical significance in the whole stage of CS1-CS5, and the female U-MPW and V-LPW were below the standard values with statistically significant only in the CS1 stage.
Table 4
Measurements of airway indexes at different cervical vertebral maturation stage
PNS-UPW | 15.28 ± 4.53 | 0.000 | 14.77 ± 3.0 | 0.000 | 17.32 ± 5.76 | 0.006 | 16.19 ± 4.13 | 0.000 | 16.42 ± 4.61 | 0.010 | 16.34 ± 4.97 | 0.001 | 17.77 ± 1.70 | 0.061 | 12.92 ± 3.47 | 0.001 | 19.07 ± 5.70 | 0.330 | 15.57 ± 3.69 | 0.004 |
U-MPW | 10.58 ± 2.99 | 0.339 | 9.87 ± 2.94 | 0.048 | 10.75 ± 1.71 | 0.001 | 9.88 ± 2.51 | 0.609 | 9.88 ± 2.77 | 0.965 | 9.13 ± 2.10 | 0.099 | 10.63 ± 2.47 | 0.667 | 9.92 ± 1.07 | 0.518 | 10.32 ± 2.82 | 0.745 | 10.23 ± 1.87 | 0.987 |
V-LPW | 12.98 ± 3.79 | 0.258 | 13.10 ± 3.37 | 0.009 | 13.69 ± 3.58 | 0.743 | 13.51 ± 3.54 | 0.122 | 12.87 ± 3.65 | 0.392 | 12.72 ± 4.20 | 0.085 | 12.93 ± 5.41 | 0.772 | 12.93 ± 3.00 | 0.151 | 16.12 ± 3.37 | 0.180 | 15.07 ± 3.65 | 0.971 |
Discussion
According to the review, studies on the effects of mouth breathing on craniofacial morphology and airway development in children were mainly based on cross-sectional data. They took mouth breathing children in a certain age stage or multiple age stages as the research objects [
29]. Previous review articles suggested the correlation between dental development and skeletal maturation was strong, and CVM was a reliable method in predicting the pubertal growth spurt [
30,
31]. There is a lack of study about craniofacial morphology and airway development in children and adolescents with mouth breathing based on the cervical vertebral maturation method.
In this study, included mouth breathing children and adolescents were classified into six stages (CS1–CS6) according to the cervical vertebral maturation method. The cephalometric analysis found that the maxillary protraction of mouth breathing children and adolescents was during CS1 and CS2, and the mandibular deficiency was throughout the whole stage from CS1 to CS5, reflected in the underdevelopment of the mandible body and the inferior-posterior rotation of the mandible. The inferior-posterior rotation of the maxilla was also observed in the stage from CS1 through CS4. Our first hypothesis has been accepted. The maxillary growth peak began at the quantitative cervical maturity stage 1 (QCVM Stage I), but then slowed down, while the maximum growth of mandible began at quantitative cervical maturity stage 2(QCVM Stage II), followed by quantitative cervical maturity stage 1(QCVM Stage I), suggesting that the peak of maxilla was earlier than that of mandible, and the growth period of mandible was longer than that of maxilla [
32,
33]. Bisham proposed that the mandibular angle of adults shrunk substantially during the growth period, with a superior-anterior rotation [
34]. These conclusions were consistent with our study results, indicating that mouth breathing had an important and varying impact on the maxilla and mandible development.
Regarding facial soft tissue development, the increasing trend of surface Angle in mouth breathing children and adolescents existed in CS2 and CS3 stages. The decrease of nasolabial angle only occurred during CS2. The increase of upper lip protrusion and the decrease of upper and lower lip length basically run through the whole period of children and adolescents' growth (CS1–CS5). Our second hypothesis has been accepted. This can be explained by the fact that the equilibrium effect between the lips and the teeth is lost as mouth breathing brings out the proclination of the upper anterior incisors and the parting of lips [
35]. It was different from the previous conclusion that in the process of growth and development, the skeletal profile protrusion gradually decreased, and the soft tissue profile basically remained constant, verifying that the development of soft tissue had little correlation with the underlying hard tissue [
36].
Regarding airway development, the nasopharyngeal airway in female mouth breathing children and adolescents was significantly narrowed throughout the whole period of CS1–CS5. The nasopharyngeal and upper oropharyngeal airway narrowing in male mouth breathing children and adolescents, and the upper oropharyngeal airway narrowing in female mouth breathing children and adolescents only existed in the developmental stage before CS3. The third hypothesis has been accepted. There was no statistical significance in the change of laryngopharynx airway in male mouth breathing children and adolescents. Female mouth breathing children and adolescents laryngopharynx airway was below standard value, only in CS1 period.
In conclusion, the effect of mouth breathing on the maxilla and mandibular ramus in children and adolescents mainly exists in the early growth and development. The shortening of mandibular body length and posteroinferior mandibular rotation were observed during the whole development of mouth breathing children and adolescents. The effect of mouth breathing on the upper lip protrusion, the shortening of upper and lower lip length and the retrogenia existed in each growth and development stage. Female nasopharyngeal stenosis was more likely to be affected than male at all stages of growth and development.
It is significant to stress the caution that should be taken while interpreting the results presented in this study, for the lack of control group and its limitations as a cross-sectional study regarding growth analysis, which is lack of sensitivity to individual variability. And the results may be varied by region on account of genetics and nutrition. Thus, it is suggested that longitudinal studies are performed in different populations, investigating the changes in hard tissue, soft tissue, and airway measurements between cervical vertebral maturation stages of mouth breathing children and adolescents.
Open AccessThis article is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License, which permits use, sharing, adaptation, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons licence, and indicate if changes were made. The images or other third party material in this article are included in the article's Creative Commons licence, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material is not included in the article's Creative Commons licence and your intended use is not permitted by statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will need to obtain permission directly from the copyright holder. To view a copy of this licence, visit
http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/. The Creative Commons Public Domain Dedication waiver (
http://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/) applies to the data made available in this article, unless otherwise stated in a credit line to the data.
Publisher's Note
Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.