International Journal of Prosthodontics and Restorative Dentistry

Register      Login

VOLUME 12 , ISSUE 4 ( October-December, 2022 ) > List of Articles


Assessment of Restoration of Nasal Volume and Nasal Area in Patients with Maxillectomy Defects Rehabilitated with Obturator Prosthesis Using Acoustic Rhinometry: A Preliminary Study

Kirandeep Singh, Vijaya Kumar Rajamani, EM Gowda, NSC Charles

Keywords : Acoustic rhinometry, Maxillectomy, Nasal area, Nasal volume, Obturator prosthesis

Citation Information : Singh K, Rajamani VK, Gowda E, Charles N. Assessment of Restoration of Nasal Volume and Nasal Area in Patients with Maxillectomy Defects Rehabilitated with Obturator Prosthesis Using Acoustic Rhinometry: A Preliminary Study. Int J Prosthodont Restor Dent 2022; 12 (4):181-184.

DOI: 10.5005/jp-journals-10019-1376

License: CC BY-NC 4.0

Published Online: 03-05-2023

Copyright Statement:  Copyright © 2022; The Author(s).


Purpose: To evaluate the nasal volume and nasal area using acoustic rhinometry in patients with maxillectomy defects rehabilitated with obturator prosthesis. Materials and methods: A total of eight patients having maxillectomy defects rehabilitated with obturator prosthesis were assessed for nasal cross-sectional area (CSA) and nasal volume using Eccovision Acoustic Rhinometer system. The average nasal area and nasal volume in patients with maxillectomy defects were compared before and after rehabilitation with an obturator prosthesis. The statistical analysis was done using a paired t-test to compare nasal area and nasal volume before and after rehabilitation. Results: The mean ± standard deviation (SD) values of the nasal area and nasal volume showed statistically significant difference when compared with and without obturator prosthesis. The mean right nasal CSA before rehabilitation was 0.806 ± 0.158 mm2 and it significantly reduced to 0.218 ± 0.039 mm2 after the use of an obturator prosthesis (p < 0.0001). Similarly, the right nasal volume, which was 8.302 ± 1.229 cm3 significantly improved to 3.281 ± 0.44 cm3 after rehabilitation with obturator prosthesis (p < 0.0001). The average left nasal CSA and nasal volume were compared with and without prosthesis and they too showed a significant improvement from 0.677 ± 0.281 mm2 to 0.215 ± 0.038 mm2 and 8.81 ± 0.982 cm3 to 3.65 ±, 0.300 cm3, respectively (p < 0.0001). Conclusion: The assessment of pretreatment (postmaxillectomy) and posttreatment (postrehabilitation with obturator prosthesis) values of nasal volume and nasal area, when compared with standard values, clearly indicated that obturator prosthesis restored the nasal volume and area to the near normal.

PDF Share
  1. Omo J, Sede M, Enabulele J. Prosthetic rehabilitation of patients with maxillary defects in a Nigerian tertiary hospital. Ann Med Health Sci Res 2014;4(4):630–633. DOI: 10.4103/2141-9248.139352
  2. Bhasin AS, Singh V, Mantri SS. Rehabilitation of patient with acquired maxillary defect, using a closed hollow bulb obturator. Indian J Palliat Care 2011;17(1):70–73. DOI: 10.4103/0973-1075.78453
  3. Singh M, Bhushan A, Kumar N, et al. Obturator prosthesis for hemimaxillectomy patients. Natl J Maxillofac Surg 2013;4(1):117–120. DOI: 10.4103/0975-5950.117814
  4. Min YG, Jang YJ. Measurements of cross-sectional area of the nasal cavity by acoustic rhinometry and CT scanning. Laryngoscope 1995;105(7 Pt 1):757–759. DOI: 10.1288/00005537-199507000-00014
  5. Dastidar P, Numminen J, Heinonen T, et al. Nasal airway volumetric measurement using segmented HRCT images and acoustic rhinometry. Am J of Rhinol 1999;13(2):97–103. DOI: 10.2500/105065899782106706
  6. de Oliveira Camargo Gomes A, Sampaio-Teixeira ACM, Trindade SHK, et al. Nasal cavity geometry of healthy adults assessed using acoustic rhinometry. Rev Bras Otorhinolaryngol 2008;74(5):746–754. DOI: 10.1016/S1808-8694(15)31386-0
  7. Andrades P, Militsakh O, Hanasono MM, et al. Current strategies in reconstruction of maxillectomy defects. Arch Otolaryngol Head Neck Surg 2011;137(8):806–812. DOI: 10.1001/archoto.2011.132
  8. Depprich R, Naujoks C, Lind D, et al. Evaluation of the quality of life of patients with maxillofacial defects after prosthodontic therapy with obturator prostheses. Int J Oral Maxillofac Surg 2011;40(1):71–79. DOI: 10.1016/j.ijom.2010.09.019
  9. Aramany MA. Basic principles of obturator design for partially edentulous patients. Part I: classification. J Prosthet Dent 1978;40(5):554–557. DOI: 10.1016/0022-3913(78)90092-6
  10. Warren DW, Drake AF. Cleft nose. Form and function. Clin Plast Surg 1993;20(4):769–779. DOI: 10.1016/S0094-1298(20)32383-X
  11. Warren DW. A quantitative technique for assessing nasal airway impairment. Am J Orthod 1984;86(4):306–314. DOI: 10.1016/0002-9416(84)90141-6
  12. Hilberg O, Jackson AC, Swift DL, et al. Acoustic rhinometry: evaluation of nasal cavity geometry by acoustic reflection. J Appl Physiol 1989;66(1):295–303. DOI: 10.1152/jappl.1989.66.1.295
  13. Banari AS, Datana S, Agarwal SS, et al. Evaluation of nasal patency among patients with unilateral cleft lip and palate: cleft versus non-cleft side. Cleft Palate Craniofac J 2021;58(3):340–346. DOI: 10.1177/1055665620948719
  14. Hilberg O, Jensen FT, Pedersen OF. Nasal airway geometry: comparison between acoustic reflections and magnetic resonance scanning. J Appl Physiol (1985) 1993;75(6):2811–2819. DOI: 10.1152/jappl.1993.75.6.2811
  15. Hilberg O, Pedersen OF. Acoustic rhinometry: recommendations for technical specifications and standard operating procedures. Rhinol Suppl 2000;16:3–17.
  16. Lenders H, Pirsig W. Diagnostic value of acoustic rhinometry: patients with allergic and vasomotor rhinitis compared with normal controls. Rhinology 1990;28(1):5–16.
  17. Mamikoglu B, Houser S, Akbar I, et al. Acoustic rhinometry and computed tomography scans for the diagnosis of nasal septal deviation, with clinical correlation. Otolaryngol Head Neck Surg 2000;123(1 Pt 1):61–68. DOI: 10.1067/mhn.2000.105255
  18. Roithmann R, Cole P, Chapnik J, et al. Acoustic rhinometry in the evaluation of nasal obstruction. Laryngoscope 1995;105(3 Pt 1):275–281. DOI: 10.1288/00005537-199503000-00010
  19. Roithmann R, Chapnik J, Zamel N, et al. Acoustic rhinometric assessment of the nasal valve. Am J Rhinol 1997;11(5):379–385. DOI: 10.2500/105065897781286016
  20. Krzych-Fałta E, Szczęsnowicz-Dąbrowska P, Samoliński B, et al. The normal ranges of selected acoustic rhinometry parameters depending on age and sex-component of standarization in nasal provocation test. Postepy Dermatol Alergol 2022;39(1):171–181. DOI: 10.5114/ada.2021.105360
  21. Kesavanathan J, Swift DL, Bascom R. Nasal pressure-volume relationships determined with acoustic rhinometry. J Appl Physiol (1985) 1995;79(2):547–553. DOI: 10.1152/jappl.1995.79.2.547
  22. Corey JP, Gungor A, Nelson R, et al. Normative standards for nasal cross-sectional areas by race as measured by acoustic rhinometry. Otolaryngol Head Neck Surg 1998;119(4):389–393. DOI: 10.1016/S0194-5998(98)70085-3
  23. Cakmak O, Coşkun M, Celik H, et al. Value of acoustic rhinometry for measuring nasal valve area. Laryngoscope 2003;113(2):295–302. DOI: 10.1097/00005537-200302000-00018
PDF Share
PDF Share

© Jaypee Brothers Medical Publishers (P) LTD.