Aim: The aim of this study was to evaluate the upper and lower pharyngeal airway dimensions were affected by different skeletal malocclusions.

Materials and methods: Lateral cephalograms of 120 subjects were used to measure the pharyngeal airway and were divided into three groups (each group included 40 subjects) according to ANB angle: Class I (ANB angle 2° ≤ ANB ≤ 4°), Class II (ANB angle(ANB ≥ 6°), and Class III (ANB angle ≤ 0°). Various linear cephalometric airway measurements (14 measurements) were used to evaluate pharyngeal airway at various levels. Statistical analyses were performed Using the ANOVA and student t-test.

Results: PNS-ppw1 (p < 0.001) and McNamara’ lower pharynx dimension (p < 0.05) showed a statistically significant difference between the groups. Two out of 14 variables ie Ba-PNS and t-ppw showed a statistically significant difference between male and female. In both measurements, the difference is significant only in the Class II group with the level of significance being (p < 0.001) in Ba-PNS measurement, and (p < 0.05) in t-ppw measurement. In both measurements males have statistically significant higher mean values than the females.

Conclusion: The dimensions of pharyngeal structures were not affected by the changes of the ANB angle. The sagittal skeletal pattern does not seem to influence the variations in the upper airway dimension. There was no significant difference in the dimensions of pharyngeal structures among males and females.

Clinical significance: The upper and lower pharyngeal airway dimensions are affected by different skeletal malocclusions can significantly aid in Orthodontic treatment planning.

Keywords: ANB angle, Cephalometric, Pharyngeal airway and Sagittal.


1. ANB = A point.Nasion-B point

2. SN-MP = sella nasion to mandibular plane

3. HSD = honestly significant difference

4. PNS = posterior nasal spine

How to cite this article: Chokotiya H, Banthia A, Rao SK, Choudhary K, Sharma P and Awasthi N. A Study on the Evaluation of Pharyngeal Size in Different Skeletal Patterns. A Radiographic Study The Journal of Contemporary Dental Practice, October 2018;19(10):1278-1283.

Source of support: Nil

Conflict of interest: None