Effects of Four First Premolar Extraction on the Upper Airway Dimension in a Non-Growing Class I Skeletal Patients: A Systematic Review

Table 1: Search strategies for each database.

 

All articles searched were reviewed by reading titles and abstracts to eliminate and exclude irrelevant articles.

 

The inclusion criteria are as follows: 

(1) Human Studies

(2) Study Type: retrospective clinical studies or randomised controlled trials

(3) Research Sample: late adolescents and adults with skeletal Class I bimaxillary protrusion without limitation to gender or race. 

(4) Intervention: fixed orthodontic treatment involving four first bicuspid extractions with maximum anchorage and retraction of anterior incisors. The method used to achieve the maximum anchorage was not a critical factor in decision making. The intervention must include either two-dimensional or three-dimensional pre-treatment and post-treatment radiographic evaluations. 

(5) Comparator: Non-extraction or no treatment. 

(6) Outcome: soft tissue changes in linear and angular measurements in lateral cephalogram and soft tissue changes measured in 3D using computer tomography (CBCT).

 

The exclusion criteria are as follows: 

(1) Animal Studies

(2) Study Type: case reports, editorials, opinions, letters

(3) Research Sample: orthodontic treatments other than interventions mentioned in the inclusion criteria, including orthopaedic treatment, mandibular advancement, bimaxillary protraction, orthognathic surgery and patients undergoing growth modification were excluded.

(4) Patients with previous orthodontic treatment history.

(5) Patients with medical histories including pharyngeal pathology, pre-existing OSA, craniofacial deformities, adenoidectomy, tonsillectomy, allergies, nasal obstructions, and chronic mouth breathing.

The following data were collected: author, year of publication, study design type, imaging modality, participant information including sample size, gender and age, skeletal and dental malocclusion, teeth extracted, anchorage design (mechanics), outcome and conclusion. Dimensional measurement changes in any region of the pharyngeal airway, which included nasopharynx, oropharynx, and laryngopharynx, were collected. Only measurements from immediate pre-treatment and immediately post-treatment were accepted.

This systematic review used the Joanna Briggs Institute’s Critical Appraisal Checklist to assess a study's methodological quality and address any possible bias in its study design, conduct, and analysis. The result of the checklist is described in Table 2, with each question answered as either “yes”, “no”, or “unclear".

Table 2: Assessment of methodological quality.

Results

The article selection process is depicted in Figure 3. The initial total number of citations found was 196 from PubMed, EMBASE, Web of Science and Scopus electronic databases.  A total of 115 duplicates were removed. Further exclusion of 46 articles was completed after screening the titles and abstracts. Thirty-three articles were then selected for full-text assessment. After the full-text appraisal, 26 articles were excluded due to the following reasons:
Article in a different language [30], sample age below 16 years old [24,31-34], Different premolar extractions [35,36], Different anchorage designs [25,37-43], Different malocclusion [44], Non-retrospective studies [16,19,22,45-50].

Figure 3: Flow Diagram for systematic search and article selection process.

Six eligible retrospective study articles were selected in this systematic review [20,22,23,51-53]. Table 2 summarises the quality assessment of the selected eligible articles. Table 3 outlines the characteristics of the included studies. The primary outcomes and conclusions from selected articles are summarised in Table 4. All six articles studied skeletal Class I bimaxillary protrusion cases involving four first bicuspid extraction using maximum anchorage mechanics, which resulted in retraction and retroclination of maxillary and mandibular incisors. Extraction indications were identical in these studies [20,22,23,51-53].

Table 3: Characteristics of selected articles.

Table 4:  Main outcome and conclusion.

A study by Germec-Cakan et al. [20] was the only study that divided its subjects into three groups: group 1 (13 borderline cases treated with extraction of four premolars with minimum anchorage), group 2 (13 borderline cases treated without extraction but with air-rotor stripping technique) and group 3 (13 bimaxillary protrusion cases treated with the extraction of four premolars with maximum anchorage). Only the data from group 3 were considered in this systematic review.

The relationship between the hyoid bone position and the sagittal position of the anterior teeth was also assessed in six of the articles. Germec-Cakan et al. [20] showed no significant change in the positioning of the hyoid bone after the treatment. In contrast, other studies by Bhatia et al. [51], Chen et al. [23], Cho et al. [52] and Wang et al. [22] demonstrated retraction of hyoid bone after retraction of lower incisors. A study by Nasser et al. [53] did not study hyoid bone changes.

All studies selected showed pharyngeal airway reduction at various anatomical levels. Bhatia et al. [51] concluded that there was a significant correlation between first bicuspid extractions with maximum anchorage, which resulted in incisor retraction and pharyngeal airway dimensions: SPP-SPPW (16.72%), TB-TPPW (19.56%), and U-MPW (22.27%). Figure 4 depicts cephalometric landmarks used by Bhatia et al. [51].

Figure 4: Cephalometric landmarks used in studies by Wang et al. [22] and Bhatia et al. [51] (Diagram from Wang et al. [22]).

Chen et al. [23] showed average cross-sectional area reductions inpalatopharynx (21.02±7.89%), glossopharynx (25.18%±13.51%), and hypopharynx (38.19±5.51%). The study by Chen et al. concluded upper airway dimension reduction was seen in bimaxillary protrusive adult patients with a significant incisor retraction. They have also come to the conclusion that there is a strong correlation between the amount of hyoid bone retraction, upper incisor retraction distance, and the hypopharyngeal dimension in the horizontal planes [23].

A significant decrease in glossopharyngeal and velopharyngeal airway dimensions was noted post-extraction orthodontic treatment with maximum anchorage from a study conducted by Cho et al. [52] The mean reduction in the Superior Posterior Airway Space (SPAS), the Middle Airway Space (MAS), and the Inferior Airway Space (IAS) were 1.96mm, 1.95mm and 1.74mm respectively. Different sections of pharyngeal spaces are depicted in Figure 5.  Group 3 data from a study by Germec-Cakan et al. [20] showed a reduction in middle and inferior airway size in patients who went through first bicuspid extraction and maximum anchorage design. The average decreases in superior and middle oropharynx sizes were 2.1±1.5 and 3.8±3.3 mm, respectively. Nasser et al. [53] concluded a decrease in superior and middle airway space following first premolar extraction with maximum anchorage mechanics. He also concluded that every 1⁰ of lower incisor retroclination reduced the tongue length by 0.73 mm.

Finally, Wang et al. [22] found that the pharyngeal airway narrowed following incisor retraction. He also indicated a noticeable relationship between lower incisor retraction and a decrease in size of the airway posterior to the soft palate, uvula, and tongue. The mean reductions in pharyngeal space were 0.56±1.48mm (SPP-SPPW), 0.85±1.77mm (U-MPW), 1.63±1.80mm (TB-TPPW), and 1.54±2.90mm (V-LPW).

Figure 5: Cephalometric pharyngeal area map showing different sections of the pharyngeal airway: “PNS-Ad2 and PNS-Ad1 for the nasopharynx in orange; superior posterior airway space (SPAS) for the velopharynx behind the soft palate in yellow; middle airway space (MAS) and inferior airway space (IAS) for the glossopharynx behind the tongue base in green” [52]; and Hypopharynx in blue (Diagram from Cho et al. [52]).

Discussion

This systematic review analysed and investigated the effects of maximum retraction of anterior teeth using maximum anchorage mechanics on pharyngeal airway space and hyoid bone position after four first bicuspid extractions with anterior incisor retractions in Class I skeletal bimaxillary protrusions non-growing individuals. Every study selected in this systematic review established that when maximum anchorage mechanic was applied to four first bicuspid extractions, a large amount of anterior teeth retraction and retroclination occurred. Kalwitzki et al. [54] demonstrated a large amount of incisor retraction resulted in a “dorsal movement of the anterior border of the oral cavity” [54], which may cause a reduction in the upper airway dimension by affecting the position of the soft palate and the tongue [54]. Germec-Cakan et al. [20] concluded there was no significant correlation between four first bicuspid extractions orthodontic with maximum anchorage and hyoid position. Cho et al. [52] also demonstrated a minimal decrease in hyoid position, which seemed clinically insignificant.

On the contrary, Bhatia et al. [51] demonstrated that the mean percentage of posterior movement of hyoid bone after retraction of lower incisors was found to be 11.64%. Chen et al. [23] showed 2.96±0.54mm and 9.87±2.92 mm of hyoid retraction in the horizontal and vertical planes, respectively, demonstrating a significant narrowing in upper airway dimensions.  From these studies, it was difficult to conclude the impact of hyoid position change on the upper airway due to contradicting results.

All six articles concluded a reduction in upper airways when maximum anchorage design was applied to four first bicuspid extractions in skeletal Class I bimaxillary protrusion cases. Not only did Germec-Cakan et al. [20] study maximum anchorage subjects, but they have also studied minimum anchorage. In contrast to the maximum anchorage, where the anterior arch segment is brought distally, minimum anchorage involves mesial movement of posterior teeth with minimum retraction of the anterior segment to fill in the premolar spaces created from the extractions. This resulted in a dimensional increase of 1.7±2.4mm and 1.0±2.2 mm in the superior and middle oropharynx, respectively. Such planned mesial movement of the posterior segment with minimum retraction of the anterior segment seemed to provide increased space behind the tongue, which may explain the improvement in pharyngeal dimension even after the extraction [45].

When the research criteria excluded the maximum anchorage from the inclusion criteria, there was a consensus from the literature reviews that there was no strong correlation between extraction orthodontic treatment and reduction of the pharyngeal airway space [25,35]. Al Maaitah et al. [25] was one of the articles which did not specify the type of mechanics used to close first premolar extraction spaces, which concluded there was no change in the upper airway space after the treatment. Studies that failed to specify the exact anchorage design used in their studies, including Stefanovic et al. [16], Valiathan et al. [24], Pliska et al. [26] and Joy et al. [37], concluded a negative association between airway space changes and dental extractions.

An article from Aldosari et al. [35] studied airway space changes after second premolar extractions. The study concluded an increase in the vertical airway length following extractions of second premolars but failed to describe the exact anchorage mechanics used in this study. Group 1 samples from a study by Germec-Cakan et al. [20] showed an increase in the upper airway dimension where minimum anchorage design was applied.

Growing patients, including young adolescents under 16 years of age, experience craniofacial growth, which leads to an upper airway volume increase [16,24,30]. A vast majority of articles published included growing individuals in their studies, which may explain the negative association between extraction orthodontic and pharyngeal size reduction. Rapid growth and different growth rates of the airway in growing individuals may have played a pivotal role in masking and confounding the effect on the upper airway following teeth extractions.45 On the other hand, the upper airway ceases its growth in adult patients [19,24,29]. Therefore, this systematic review excluded growing patients to assess and obtain results as accurately as possible.

There are many different types of malocclusions. Although it must be stressed that every case is different, each malocclusion type has its own treatment protocol, which may or may not involve extraction or extractions of teeth. To maintain strict research parameters, only one type of malocclusion and one method of teeth extractions were chosen in this systematic review: skeletal I bimaxillary protrusion and four first bicuspid extractions. Further studies are required to examine the effects of various extraction groups and mechanics designs in different skeletal and dental malocclusion settings. Articles that used both cone-beam computed tomography (CBCT) and the lateral cephalogram as imaging modalities were selected to measure and quantify in this systematic review. The pharyngeal airway is a three-dimensional structure. Hence, 3D imaging using CBCT would be the best method of obtaining true pharyngeal airway dimensions [55-58]. However, a two-dimensional lateral cephalogram has been proven to be an acceptable imaging modality in assessing pharyngeal airway changes in patients [59,60,61]. In fact, a high correlation was reported between the pharyngeal volume measured on CBCT and pharyngeal airway size seen on lateral cephalograms [62]. A high reliability of cephalometric landmarks and measurements was also reported by Miles et al. [61] Out of six eligible articles, one study by Chen et al. [23] utilised CBCT to measure the airway changes. The rest of the studies used lateral cephalograms for obtaining results [20,22,23,51-53].

Limitations

For research, a Randomised Controlled Trial (RCT) is the most controlled and least biased method for interventional research. However, the nature of orthodontic treatment will not allow RCT to be conducted easily because every case is individualised based on its diagnosis. Also, it is unethical to extract all four bicuspids or not extract them randomly, not considering their actual needs, particularly if it can harm the patient. All six articles chosen for this review were retrospective studies, and the value and quality of their research cannot be overlooked.

Unfortunately, the long-term stability of the measurements was unable to be obtained from all included studies. Therefore, further follow up research on the long-term effect of extraction orthodontic treatment on the pharyngeal airway would be required. Inconsistent study designs, research materials and methods were identified for this systematic review. Inconsistencies in age selection, skeletal and dental malocclusion type, selection of teeth being extracted, anchorage design and keeping the research parameters wide open may have led to many articles resulting in no correlation between extraction orthodontics and narrowing of the airway. Thus, results from articles with inconsistent research materials and methodologies may be questioned. For this reason, it is difficult to rationalise and make a conclusive statement that there is no association between extraction orthodontics and reduction of pharyngeal airway dimension. The result may depend heavily on the chosen study design. In the end, because each orthodontic treatment should be tailored to individual needs, further studies are required with strict research parameters to study the effects of orthodontic extractions on the upper airway with different skeletal pattern variations without various anchorage designs to avoid generalisation, which seems to be happening in the world of orthodontic.

Conclusions

Within the limitations of this systematic review, for non-growing Class I skeletal bimaxillary protrusion with four first bicuspid extractions, the following conclusions could be drawn when treated with maximum anchorage design:

1. Retraction and retroclination of the anterior incisors reduced oral cavity dimension, affecting soft palate and tongue position, consequently reducing the pharyngeal airway dimension.
2. The hyoid bone positional changes following extraction orthodontic and incisor retraction remain inconclusive. Further studies are warranted.
3. A significant correlation was observed between first four bicuspid extraction orthodontics with maximum anchorage and the pharyngeal airway dimension reduction.

Extraction orthodontic treatment should be considered as one of the treatment options, not a solution to every orthodontic problem. Every case should be carefully diagnosed and analysed for correct treatment planning and execution for optimal results without compromising our patient’s airways hence their health.

Conflict of interest

The author has no conflict of interest to declare in this article.

References 

1. Benner A, Sharma P, Sharma S. StatPearls. StatPearls Publishing; Treasure Island (FL): Sep 3, 2020. Anatomy, Head and Neck, Cervical, Respiratory, Larynx, and Cricoarytenoid. 
2. Patwa A, Shah A. (2015) Anatomy and physiology of respiratory system relevant to anaesthesia. Indian J Anaesth. 59(9):533-1. 
3. Kadioglu O, Currier GF, editors. (2019) Craniofacial 3D Imaging: Current Concepts in Orthodontics and Oral and Maxillofacial Surgery. Springer.
4. Schwab RJ. (1998) Upper airway imaging. Clin Chest Med. 19(1):33-54.
5. Tan A, Yin JD, Tan LW, van Dam RM, Cheung YY, et al. (2016) Predicting obstructive sleep apnea using the STOP‐Bang questionnaire in the general population. Sleep Med. 27-28:66-71.
6. Ip M, Lam B, Lauder IJ, K W Tsang, K F Chung et al. (2001) A community study of sleep‐disordered breathing in middle‐aged Chinese men in Hong Kong. Chest. 119(1):62‐9.
7. Chan A, Sutherland K, Schwab RJ, Zeng B, Petocz P, et al. (2010) The effect of mandibular advancement on upper airway structure in obstructive sleep apnoea. Thorax. 65(8):726‐2.
8. Eckert DJ, White DP, Jordan AS, Malhotra A, Wellman A. (2013) Defining phenotypic causes of obstructive sleep apnea. Identification of novel therapeutic targets. Am J Respir Crit Care Med. 188(8):996‐04.
9. Edwards BA, Eckert DJ, Jordan AS. (2017) Obstructive sleep apnoea pathogenesis from mild to severe: is it all the same? Respirology. 22(1):33‐2
10. Vos W, De Backer J, Devolder A, Vanderveken O, Verhulst S et al. (2007) Correlation between severity of sleep apnea and upper airway morphology based on advanced anatomical and functional imaging. J Biomech. 40(10):2207‐13.
11. Vos WG, De Backer WA, Verhulst SL. (2010) Correlation between the severity of sleep apnea and upper airway morphology in pediatric and adult patients. Curr Opin Allergy Clin Immunol. 10(1):26‐3.
12. Heo JY, Kim JS. (2011) Correlation between severity of sleep apnea and upper airway morphology: cephalometry and MD‐CT study during awake and sleep states. Acta Otolaryngol. 131(1):84‐90.
13. Neelapu BC, Kharbanda OP, Sardana HK, Balachandran B, Sardana B, et al. (2017) Craniofacial and upper airway morphology in adult obstructive sleep apnea patients: a systematic review and meta‐analysis of cephalometric studies. Sleep Med Rev. 31:79‐90.
14. Kikuchi M. (2005) Orthodontic treatment in children to prevent sleep-disordered breathing in adulthood. Sleep Breath. 9(4):146-58.
15. Tsuda H, Fastlicht S, Almeida FR, Lowe AA. (2011) The correlation between craniofacial morphology and sleep-disordered breathing in children in an undergraduate orthodontic clinic. Sleep Breath. 15(2):163-71.
16. Stefanovic N, El HA, Chenin DL, Glisic B, Palomo JM. Three-dimensional pharyngeal airway changes in orthodontic patients treated with and without extractions. Orthod Craniofac Res. 16(2):87-96.
17. Williams R, Hosila FJ. (1976) The effect of different extraction sites upon incisor retraction. Am J Orthod. 69:388-10
18. Ribeiro GL, Jacob HB. (2016) Understanding the basis of space closure in Orthodontics for a more efficient orthodontic treatment. Dental Press J Orthod. 21(2):115-25
19. Larsen AJ, Rindal DB, Hatch JP, Kane S, Asche SE, et al. (2015) Evidence supports no relationship between obstructive sleep apnea and premolar extraction: an electronic health records review. J Clin Sleep Med. 11(12):1443‐8.
20. Germec‐Cakan D, Taner T, Akan S. (2011) Uvulo‐glossopharyngeal dimensions in non‐extraction, extraction with minimum anchorage, and extraction with maximum anchorage. Eur J Orthod. 33(5):515‐20.
21. Fukuda T, Tsuiki S, Maeda K. (2011) Possible increase in the severity of obstructive sleep apnea in patients with orthodontic premolar extractions. 20th Anniversary Meeting of the American Academy of Dental Sleep Medicine Minneapolis, Minnesota, USA.
22. Wang Q, Jia P, Anderson NK, Wang L, Lin J. (2012) Changes of pharyngeal airway size and hyoid bone position following orthodontic treatment of Class I bimaxillary protrusion. Angle Orthod. 82(1):115‐21.
23. Chen Y, Hong L, Wang CL, Zhang SJ, Cao C, et al. (2012) Effect of large incisor retraction on upper airway morphology in adult bimaxillary protrusion patients. Angle orthod 82(6):964-70. 
24. Valiathan M, El H, Hans MG, Palomo MJ. (2010) Effects of extraction versus non‐extraction treatment on oropharyngeal airway volume. Angle Orthod. 80(6):1068‐74. 
25. Al Maaitah E, El Said N, Abu Alhaija ES. (2012) First premolar extraction effects on upper airway dimension in bimaxillary proclination patients. Angle Orthod. 82(5):853‐59.
26. Pliska BT, Tam IT, Lowe AA, Madson AM, Almeida FR. (2016) Effect of orthodontic treatment on the upper airway volume in adults. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop. 150(6):937‐44.
27. Chiang CC, Jeffres MN, Miller A, Hatcher DC. (2012) Three dimensional airway evaluation in 387 subjects from one university orthodontic clinic using cone beam computed tomography. Angle Orthod. 82(6):985-92. 
28. Jeans WD, Fernando DC, Maw AR, Leighton BC. (1981) A longitudinal study of the growth of the nasopharynx and its contents in normal children. Bri J Radiol. 54(638):117-21.
29. Shannon TP. Oropharyngeal airway volume following orthodontic treatment: premolar extraction versus non-extraction. The University of Tennessee Health Science Center. 2012.
30. Haddad S, Kerbrat JB, Schouman T, Goudot P. (2017) Impact de la diminution du périmètre des arcades dentaireslorsd’une prise en charge orthodontique dans le développement des voiesaériennessupérieures. Une revue de la littérature [Effect of dental arch length decrease during orthodontic treatment in the upper airway development. A review. Orthod Fr. 88(1):25-3.
31. Sun JW, Tang R, Gao J, Li YM. (2021) Three-dimensional changes of oropharyngeal airway after orthodontic extraction treatment in skeletal class adolescents. Zhonghua Kou Qiang Yi Xue Za Zhi. 56(3):256-2.
32. Al Senani Y, Al Shammery AJ, Al Nafea A, Al Absi N, Al Kadhi O, et al. (2021). Influence of fixed orthodontic therapy on pharyngeal airway dimensions after correction of class-I,-II and-III skeletal profiles in adolescents. Int J Environ Res Public Health. 18(2):1-8.
33. Sharma K, Shrivastav S, Sharma N, Hotwani K, Murrell MD. (2014) Effects of first premolar extraction on airway dimensions in young adolescents: A retrospective cephalometric appraisal. Contemp Clin Dent. 5(2):190-4.
34. Maurya MRK, Kumar CP, Sharma LCM, Nehra LCK, Singh H, et al. (2019) Cephalometric appraisal of the effects of orthodontic treatment on total airway dimensions in adolescents. J Oral Biol Craniofac Res. 9(1):51-6.
35. Aldosari MA, Alqasir AM, Alqahtani ND, Almosa NA, Almoammar KA, et al. (2020) Evaluation of the airway space changes after extraction of four second premolars and orthodontic space closure in adult female patients with bimaxillary protrusion - A retrospective study. Saudi Dent J. 32(3):142-7.
36. AlKawari HM, AlBalbeesi HO, Alhendi AA, Alhuwaish HA, Al Jobair A, et al. (2018) Pharyngeal airway dimensional changes after premolar extraction in skeletal class II and class III orthodontic patients. J Orthod Sci. 7:10. 
37. Joy A, Park J, Chambers DW, Oh H. (2020) Airway and cephalometric changes in adult orthodontic patients after premolar extractions. Angle Orthod. 90(1):39-6.
38. Kim MA, Park YH. (2014) Does upper premolar extraction affects the changes of pharyngeal airway volume after bimaxillary surgery in skeletal class III patients? J Oral Maxillofac Surg. 72(1):165-e1.
39. Moscarino S, Kötter F, Brandt M, Modabber A, Kniha K, et al Influence of different surgical concepts for moderate skeletal class II and III treatment on the nasopharyngeal airway space. J Craniomaxillofac Surg. 47(10):1489-97.
40. Park JH, Kim S, Lee YJ, Bayome M, Kook YA, et al. (2018) Three-dimensional evaluation of maxillary dentoalveolar changes and airway space after distalization in adults. Angle Orthod. 88(2):187-4.
41. Perves H, Shah S, Haqqui R, Nasser A, Azam F, et al. (2021) Evaluation of upper airway dimension in all four first premolar extraction cases. J Liaquat Un Med Health Sci. 20(2):122-6.
42. Pliska BT, Tam IT, Lowe AA, Madson AM, Almeida FR. (2016) Effect of orthodontic treatment on the upper airway volume in adults. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop. 150(6):937-4.
43. Shi X, Chen H, Lobbezoo F, Berkhout E, de Lange J, et al. (2021) Effects of miniscrew-assisted orthodontic treatment with premolar extractions on upper airway dimensions in adult patients with Class II high-angle malocclusion. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop. 159(6):724-2.
44. Zhang J, Chen G, Li W, Xu T, Gao X. (2015) Upper Airway Changes after Orthodontic Extraction Treatment in Adults: A Preliminary Study using Cone Beam Computed Tomography. PLoS One. 10(11):e0143233.
45. Hu Z, Yin X, Liao J, Zhou C, Yang Z, et al. (2015) The effect of teeth extraction for orthodontic treatment on the upper airway: a systematic review. Sleep Breath. 19(2):441-51.
46. Moon S, Mohamed AMA, He Y, Dong W, Yaosen C, et al. (2021) Extraction vs. Nonextraction on Soft-Tissue Profile Change in Patients with Malocclusion: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis. Biomed Res Int. 18:7751516.
47. Ng JH, Song YL, Yap AUJ. (2019) Effects of bicuspid extractions and incisor retraction on upper airway of Asian adults and late adolescents: A systematic review. J Oral Rehabil. 46(11):1071-87.
48. Orabi N, Flores-Mir C, Elshebiny T, Elkordy S, Palomo JM. (2021) Pharyngeal airway dimensional changes after orthodontic treatment with premolar extractions: A systematic review with meta-analysis. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop. 160(4):503-15.
49. Kurtzner K, Al-Jewair T. (2016) There is Insufficient Evidence that Upper Airway Dimension Changes after Four Premolar Extraction Orthodontic Treatment. J Evid Based Dent Pract. 16(2):118-20.
50. Mollabashi V, Mahmoodzadeh M, Yousefi F, Farhadian M, Haghpanah ZL, et al. (2018) Changes of Pharyngeal Airway Size and Hyoid Bone Position Following Orthodontic Treatment of Class II Open Bite Patient, J Res Med Dent Sci. 6(1):301-05.
51. Bhatia S, Jayan B, Chopra SS. (2016) Effect of retraction of anterior teeth on pharyngeal airway and hyoid bone position in Class I bimaxillary dentoalveolar protrusion. Med J Armed Forces India. 72(Suppl 1):S17-S23.
52. Cho HN, Yoon HJ, Park JH, Park YG, Kim SJ. (2021) Effect of extraction treatment on upper airway dimensions in patients with bimaxillary skeletal protrusion relative to their vertical skeletal pattern. Korean J Orthod. 51(3):166-78.
53. Nasser A, Alshammari R, Al-Jewair T, Aldosari M, Sahar A. (2019) Post-orthodontic Pharyngeal Airway Changes Following First Premolar Extraction and Incisor Retraction in Bimaxillary Protrusion Patients-A Retrospective Study. J Res Med Dent Sci. 7(5):29-7.
54. Kalwitzki M, Godt A, Goz G. (2011) Effects of extraction treatment on maxillary and mandibular sagittal development in growing patients. Eur J Orthod. 33(5):544-50.
55. Aboudara C, Nielsen I, Huang JC, Maki K, Miller AJ, et al. (2009) Comparison of airway space with conventional lateral headfilms and 3‐dimensional reconstruction from cone‐beam computed tomography. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop. 135(4):468‐79. 
56. Lenza MG, Lenza MM, Dalstra M, Melsen B, Cattaneo PM. (2010). An analysis of different approaches to the assessment of upper airway morphology: a CBCT study. Orthod Craniofac Res. 13(2):96‐105. 
57. Abe‐Nickler MD, Portner S, Sieg P, Hakim SG. (2017) No correlation between two‐dimensional measurements and three‐dimensional configuration of the pharyngeal upper airway space in cone‐beam computed tomography. J Craniomaxillofac Surg. 45(3):371‐76.
58. Eslami E, Katz ES, Baghdady M, Abramovitch K, Masoud MI. (2017) Are three‐dimensional airway evaluations obtained through computed and cone‐beam computed tomography scans predictable from lateral cephalograms? A systematic review of evidence. Angle Orthod. 87(1):159‐67.
59. Pirila-Parkkinen K, Lopponen H, Nieminen P, Tolonen U, Paakko, et al. (2011) Validity of upper airway assessment in children: a clinical, cephalometric, and MRI study. Angle Orthod. 81(3):433-9. 
60. Kaur S, Rai S, Kaur M. (2014) Comparison of reliability of lateral cephalogram and computed tomography for assessment of airway space. Niger J Clin Pract 17(5):629-36.
61. Riley R W, Powell N B (1990) Maxillofacial surgery and obstructive sleep apnea syndrome. Otolaryngol. Clin North Am. 23(4):809-26.
62. Miles P G, O’Reilly M, Close J. (1995) The reliability of upper airway landmark identification. Aust Orthod J. 14(1):3-6.