Correlation Between Maxillary Morphology and Sinus Dimensions in Skeletal Class I, II, and III Subjects: A Comparative Study

Authors

• Nida Shaikh, Department of Orthodontics and Dentofacial Orthopaedics, Rural Dental College, Pravara Institute of Medical Sciences, Loni, IndiaFollow
• Dipti Shastri, Department of Orthodontics and Dentofacial Orthopaedics, Faculty of Dental Sciences, King George’s Medical University, Lucknow, India
• Pradeep Tandon, Department of Orthodontics and Dentofacial Orthopaedics, Faculty of Dental Sciences, King George’s Medical University, Lucknow, India
• Gyan Prakash Singh, Department of Orthodontics and Dentofacial Orthopaedics, Faculty of Dental Sciences, King George’s Medical University, Lucknow, India

Abstract

Background: This study aimed to evaluate variations in maxillary and sinus morphology and their correlations with skeletal malocclusion patterns using CBCT.

Methods: This retrospective study analyzed CBCT records of 70 subjects aged 17–40 years, divided into three groups: Skeletal Class I (N = 25), Class II (N = 25), and Class III (N = 20). Five maxillary skeletal and four sinus parameters were assessed. Intergroup comparisons were performed using one-way analysis of variance (ANOVA) followed by Tukey’s post hoc test. Correlations were evaluated using Pearson’s correlation test. Intra-observer reliability was assessed by re-measuring 8 randomly selected CBCT scans after a two-week interval, and intraclass correlation coefficients (ICCs) were calculated to confirm measurement consistency.

Results: Significant intergroup differences were found in ANS-PNS, Cd-A, and Zm-Zm, with skeletal Class III subjects showing consistently reduced values. Maxillary sinus dimensions did not differ significantly among groups. Skeletal Class III subjects demonstrated stronger correlations between sinus and skeletal parameters compared to Class I and II.

Conclusions: Although maxillary sinus dimensions did not differ significantly among skeletal classes, notable correlations with maxillary skeletal morphology, especially in Class III malocclusion, were observed. These findings may have relevance for diagnostic assessment and treatment planning in orthodontic and surgical cases.

References

1. Algahefi AL, Al-Ak'hali MS, Halboub E, Tong F, Almashraqi AA, Ghaleb LH, et al. The relationship between the dimensions of frontal air sinus and skeletal malocclusions: A systematic review and meta-analysis. Heliyon. 2024;10(2):e24200.
2. Dhiman I, Singla A, Mahajan V, Singh H, Seth V, Negi P. Reliability of frontal sinus with that of maxillary sinus in assessment of different types of skeletal malocclusions. J Indian Orthod Soc. 2015;49(2):96–103.
3. Tehranchi A, Motamedian SR, Saedi S, Kabiri S, Shidfar S. Correlation between frontal sinus dimensions and cephalometric indices: A cross-sectional study. Eur J Dent. 2017;11(1):64–70.
4. Tunca M, Kaplan V, Kaya Y, Tunca Y. The relationship between frontal sinus dimensions and skeletal malocclusion. Eur Oral Res. 2022;56(3):130–5.
5. Oliveira MBCR, Marañón-Vásquez GA, Madalena IR, Paddenberg-Schubert E, Beisel-Memmert S, Lepri CP, et al. Analysis of frontal sinus dimensions according to the skeletal malocclusion in German teenagers. Braz Dent J. 2024;35:e245964.
6. Basdra EK, Stellzig A, Komposch G. The importance of the maxillary sinuses in facial development: A case report. Eur J Orthod. 1998;20(1):1–4.
7. Song SY, Hong JW, Roh TS, Kim YO, Kim DW, Park BY. Volume and distances of the maxillary sinus in craniofacial deformities with midfacial hypoplasia. Otolaryngol Head Neck Surg. 2009;141(5):614–20.
8. Endo T, Abe R, Kuroki H, Kojima K, Oka K, Shimooka S. Cephalometric evaluation of maxillary sinus sizes in different malocclusion classes. Odontology. 2010;98(1):65–72.
9. Qadir M and Mushtaq M. Maxillary sinus size and malocclusion: Is there any relation? Int J of App Dent Sci. 2017;3(4):333–7.
10. Aşantoǧrol F, Etöz M, Topsakal KG, Can FE. Evaluation of the maxillary sinus volume and dimensions in different skeletal classes using cone beam computed tomography. Ann Med Res. 2021;28(4):709–15.
11. Abdulwahid A. Cone beam computed tomography: still a blessing for maxillofacial imaging. J Dent Health Oral Disord Ther. 2021;12(2):33‒9.
12. Sam A, Currie K, Oh H, Flores-Mir C, Lagravére-Vich M. Reliability of different three-dimensional cephalometric landmarks in cone-beam computed tomography : A systematic review. Angle Orthod. 2018;89(2):317–32.
13. Nimbalkar KA, Datana SS, Chopra SS, Jain D. Evaluation of maxillary sinus dimensions and volume in different sagittal and vertical facial types: A CBCT-based study. J Contemp Orthod. 2023;7(4):287–92.
14. Oz U, Orhan K, Abe N. Comparison of linear and angular measurements using two-dimensional conventional methods and three-dimensional cone beam CT images reconstructed from a volumetric rendering program in vivo. Dentomaxillofac Radiol. 2011;40(8):492–500.
15. Kannampurath A, Leela Srikantannair S, Mathew P, SivaPrasad T. Maxillary sinus in gender determination: a morphometric analysis using cone beam computed tomography. Forensic Sci Med Pathol. 2024;20:1215–21.
16. Lorkiewicz-Muszyńska D, Kociemba W, Rewekant A, Sroka A, Zaba C, Wozniak K, et al. Development of the maxillary sinus from birth to age 18: Postnatal growth pattern. Int J Pediatr Otorhinolaryngol. 2015;79(9):1393–400.
17. Zawawi KH, Al-Saleem AK, Alshammery HM, Aboznada OA, Alghamdi KA, Alzahrani AA, et al. Morphological features of Class I, II and III malocclusions of Saudi adolescents. Saudi J Biol Sci. 2021;28(6):3534–9.
18. Mouakeh M. Cephalometric evaluation of craniofacial pattern of Syrian children with Class III malocclusion. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop. 2001;119(6):640–9.
19. Gasgoos SS, Al-Saleem NR, Awni KM. Cephalometric features of skeletal class I, II and III (a comparative study). Al-Rafidain Dent J. 2007;7(2):122–30.
20. Ning R, Guo J, Li Q, Martin D. Maxillary width and hard palate thickness in men and women with different vertical sagittal skeletal patterns. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop. 2021;159(5):564–73.
21. Przystańska A, Alusińska-Szyszka N, Sporniak-Tutak K, Skrzat J, Walocha J, Zawiliński J. The association between maxillary sinus dimensions and midface parameters during human postnatal growth. Biomed Res Int. 2018;2018:6391465.
22. Alhazmi A. Association between maxillary sinus dimensions and midface width: 2-D and 3-D volumetric cone-beam computed tomography cross sectional study. J Contemp Dent Pract. 2020;21(3):317–21.
23. Dinç K, İçöz D. Maxillary sinus volume changes in individuals with different craniofacial skeletal patterns: CBCT study. BMC Oral Health. 2024;24:1516.
24. Saccucci M, Cipriani F, Carderi S, Di Carlo G, D'Attilio M, Rodolfino D, et al. Gender assessment through three-dimensional analysis of maxillary sinuses by means of cone beam computed tomography. Eur Rev Med Pharmacol Sci. 2015;19(2):185–93.
25. Christoloukas N, Mitsea A, Rontogianni A, Angelopoulos C. Gender determination based on CBCT maxillary sinus analysis: A systematic review. Diagnostics. 2023;13(23):3536.
26. Abate A, Cavagnetto D, Lanteri V, Maspero C. Three-dimensional evaluation of the maxillary sinus in patients with different skeletal classes and cranio-maxillary relationships assessed with cone beam computed tomography. Sci Rep. 2023;13:2098.
27. Belgin CA, Colak M, Adiguzel O, Akkus Z, Orhan K. Three-dimensional evaluation of maxillary sinus volume in different age and sex groups using CBCT. Eur Arch Otorhinolaryngol. 2019;276:1493–9.
28. Shrestha B, Pokharel PR, Gyawali R, Bhattarai B, Adhikari B. Evaluation of maxillary sinus volume in different craniofacial patterns: a CBCT study. Oral Radiol. 2021;37:647–52.

Recommended Citation

Shaikh, N., Shastri, D., Tandon, P., & Singh, G. P. Correlation Between Maxillary Morphology and Sinus Dimensions in Skeletal Class I, II, and III Subjects: A Comparative Study. J Dent Indones. 2026;33(1): 39-45