2018
DOI: 10.1007/s00405-018-5177-z
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

The effect of ectodermal dysplasia on volume and surface area of maxillary sinus

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
3
1
1

Citation Types

0
7
0

Year Published

2019
2019
2024
2024

Publication Types

Select...
7

Relationship

0
7

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 7 publications
(7 citation statements)
references
References 32 publications
0
7
0
Order By: Relevance
“…Nevertheless, in other study, no difference of trabecular mandibular structure was noted between healthy and ED subjects [23]. Use of CBCT helped to understand that maxillary sinus volume and its surface area among patients with ED were statistically smaller compared to control group of individuals without the above-mentioned pathology [24].…”
Section: Oral and Dental Signs Of Ectodermal Dysplasiamentioning
confidence: 79%
“…Nevertheless, in other study, no difference of trabecular mandibular structure was noted between healthy and ED subjects [23]. Use of CBCT helped to understand that maxillary sinus volume and its surface area among patients with ED were statistically smaller compared to control group of individuals without the above-mentioned pathology [24].…”
Section: Oral and Dental Signs Of Ectodermal Dysplasiamentioning
confidence: 79%
“…Specifically, we excluded individuals who had a history of maxillofacial trauma or orthognathic surgical procedures, as well as those with other syndromes known to cause craniofacial defects, as these factors have been reported to have significant effects on maxillary sinus and nasal septum structures. [20][21][22][23][24][25] For example, in the study of Inal et al, 24 were different in all three groups when compared to the control group. Also, MS volumes in ectodermal dysplasia cases were significantly different from the control group.…”
Section: Total Maxillary Sinus Volume (Mmmentioning
confidence: 91%
“…Also, MS volumes in ectodermal dysplasia cases were significantly different from the control group. 21 In addition, many other syndromes, such as apert, pfeiffer, goldenhar, down, achondroplasia, and cleido cranial dysplasia have been reported that affect the development of the maxilla and maxillary sinus in terms of size and position. 21,[26][27][28] Age groups of this study were determined according to MS growth periods.…”
Section: Total Maxillary Sinus Volume (Mmmentioning
confidence: 99%
See 1 more Smart Citation
“…Compared to MS shape, even fewer investigations into MS surface area and/or SAV ratios have been undertaken. Of the studies that have actually quantified MS surface area, most have focused on clinical issues related to orthodontic or rhinological interventions (Beswick et al, 2015; Koparal et al, 2019; Luz et al, 2018; Smith et al, 2017; Yalcin et al, 2018). Moreover, while these studies have typically quantified MS surface area and volume separately, they have not specifically investigated associations between these two variables (e.g., SAV ratios) nor any potential functional interactions.…”
Section: Introductionmentioning
confidence: 99%