Clinical estimation of mouth breathing

Fujimoto, Sachiko; Yamaguchi, Kazunori; Gunjigake, Kaori

doi:10.1016/j.ajodo.2009.03.034

Cited by 26 publications

(44 citation statements)

References 37 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Young children have a much higher resistance at rest breathing, and the switching point is difficult to define even when using several methods simultaneously. 36 However, not only increased resistance, but individual perception of resistance seems to define the threshold for switching from nasal to partial oral breathing, while modification of rest breathing effort begins even before the perception of a problem. 21,37 CONCLUSIONS N In children and adolescents, oronasal differential pressures differed by gender but the difference was small (0.10 cmH 2 O).…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Upper airway resistance during growth: A longitudinal study of children from 8 to 17 years of age

Laine-Alava

Murtolahti

Crouse

et al. 2015

The Angle Orthodontist

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Objective: To study upper airway breathing in 115 children annually from 8 to 17 years of age with the hypothesis that upper airway respiratory needs increase steadily during growth and show sexual dimorphism. Material and Methods: To calculate nasal resistance, airflow rate (mL/s) and oronasal pressures (cmH 2 O) were measured during rest breathing in a seated position using the pressure-flow technique.Results: Median values of oronasal pressure ranged at different ages in girls from 0.88 to 1.13 and in boys from 0.92 to 1.44 cmH 2 O, being 0.95 and 0.93 cmH 2 O at the age of 17 years, respectively. The gender differences were statistically significant in four age groups (P , .05 by the Mann-Whitney test). Mean values of nasal resistance decreased from 8 to 17 years of age in girls from 4.0 (63.27) to 2.4 (62.30) and in boys from 3.3 (62.48) to 1.5 (60.81) cmH 2 O/L/s. However, there was an increase in resistance in 11-year-old girls and 12-year-old boys and at the age of 15 in both genders (P , .05 by paired t-test). Conclusions: Respiratory efforts stabilize oronasal pressure to maintain vital functions at optimal level. Nasal resistance decreased with age but increased temporarily at the prepubertal and pubertal phases, in accordance with other growth and possibly hormonal changes. When measuring upper airway function for clinical purposes, especially in patients with sleep apnea, asthma, allergies, cleft palate, or maxillary expansion, the measurements need to be compared with age-and genderspecific values obtained from healthy children. (Angle Orthod. 2016;86:610-616.)

show abstract

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Upper airway resistance during growth: A longitudinal study of children from 8 to 17 years of age

Laine-Alava

Murtolahti

Crouse

et al. 2015

The Angle Orthodontist

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…These latter are not necessarily mouth breathers. 17 It has been found 17 that nasal resistance to the airflow is not stable and is always changing and that the strength of the nasal resistance to break the posterior oral seal varies with subjects. The actual times during which real mouth breathers make breath through the mouth may be irregular, unstable, and unclear.…”

Section: Clinical Implicationmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Real mouth breathing should be differentiated with incompetent lip subjects who open the lips at rest. 17 Nasal resistance to the airflow is always changing and not stable, and the strength of the nasal resistance to break the posterior oral seal varies with subjects. 17 Therefore, mouth breather is not always mouth breather in a day, and when the mouth breather makes breath through the mouth may be irregular and unstable.…”

Section: Masticatory Efficiencymentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Among adult volunteers with normal occlusion and no functional abnormalities, 10 normal nasal breathers (four males, six females) were selected by recording airflow from the mouth for 5 minutes using a CO 2 sensor, according to the method of Fujimoto et al 17 ( Figure 1). The average age of subjects was 30.2 years.…”

Section: Subjectsmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…However, the posterior oral sealing is possibly adapted to be broken easily with lower nasal resistance to the airflow. 17,26,27 For those reasons, mouth breathing was objectively differentiated with incompetent lip using a CO 2 sensor, and normal nasal breathers were selected as subjects. Full-time mouth breathing was induced by occluding the nostrils with a nose clip.…”

Section: Clinical Implicationmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 2 more Smart Citations

The effect of mouth breathing on chewing efficiency

Nagaiwa

Gunjigake

Yamaguchi

2015

The Angle Orthodontist

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Objective: To examine the effect of mouth breathing on chewing efficiency by evaluating masticatory variables. Materials and Methods: Ten adult nasal breathers with normal occlusion and no temporomandibular dysfunction were selected. Subjects were instructed to bite the chewing gum on the habitual side. While breathing through the mouth and nose, the glucide elution from the chewing gum, number of chewing strokes, duration of chewing, and electromyography (EMG) activity of the masseter muscle were evaluated as variables of masticatory efficiency. Results: The durations required for the chewing of 30, 60, 90, 120, 180, and 250 strokes were significantly (P , .05) longer while breathing through the mouth. There was no significant difference in the glucide elution rate (%) for each chewing stroke between nose and mouth breathings. The glucide elution rates for 1-and 3-minute chewing were significantly (P , .05) lower while breathing through the mouth. However, there was no significant difference in the glucide elution rate for 5-minute chewing between nose and mouth breathings. While chewing for 1, 3, and 5 minutes, the chewing stroke and EMG activity of the masseter muscle were significantly (P , .05) lower during mouth breathing. Conclusions: It takes a longer amount of time to complete chewing to obtain higher masticatory efficiency when breathing through the mouth. Therefore, mouth breathing will decrease the masticatory efficiency if the duration of chewing is restricted in everyday life. (Angle Orthod. 2016;86:227-234.)

show abstract

The Benefits of Consulting with an Ear, Nose, and Throat (Ent) Specialist Before and During Orthodontic Treatment

Ghafari¹,

Macari²

2012

Integrated Clinical Orthodontics

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Clinical estimation of mouth breathing

Cited by 26 publications

References 37 publications

Upper airway resistance during growth: A longitudinal study of children from 8 to 17 years of age

Upper airway resistance during growth: A longitudinal study of children from 8 to 17 years of age

The effect of mouth breathing on chewing efficiency

The Benefits of Consulting with an Ear, Nose, and Throat (Ent) Specialist Before and During Orthodontic Treatment

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About