Skip to main content
Download PDF
  • Research article
  • Open access
  • Published:

Restricted upper airway dimensions in patients with dentofacial deformity from juvenile idiopathic arthritis

Pediatric Rheumatology volume 20, Article number: 32 (2022) Cite this article

Abstract

Background

This retrospective, cross-sectional study aimed to assess the pharyngeal airway dimensions of patients with juvenile idiopathic arthritis (JIA) and moderate/severe JIA-related dentofacial deformity (mandibular retrognathia/micrognathia), and compare the results with JIA patients with a normal mandibular appearance and a group of non-JIA patients.

Methods

Seventy-eight patients were retrospectively included in a 1:1:1 manner as specified below. All patients had previously been treated at the Section of Orthodontics, Aarhus University, Denmark. All had a pretreatment cone beam computed tomography (CBCT). Group 1 (JIA+); 26 JIA patients with severe arthritis-related dentofacial deformity and mandibular retrognathia/micrognathia. Group 2 (JIA-); 26 JIA patients with normal mandibular morphology/position. Group 3 (Controls); 26 non-JIA subjects. Dentofacial morphology and upper airway dimensions, excluding the nasal cavity, were assessed in a validated three-dimensional (3D) fashion. Assessment of dentofacial deformity comprised six morphometric measures. Assessment of airway dimensions comprised nine measures.

Results

Five morphometric measures of dentofacial deformity were significantly deviating in the JIA+ group compared with the JIA- and control groups: Posterior mandibular height, anterior facial height, mandibular inclination, mandibular occlusal inclination, and mandibular sagittal position. Five of the airway measurements showed significant inter-group differences: JIA+ had a significantly smaller nasopharyngeal airway dimension (ad2-PNS), a smaller velopharyngeal volume, a smaller minimal cross-sectional area and a smaller minimal hydraulic diameter than JIA- and controls. No significant differences in upper airway dimensions were seen between JIA- and controls.

Conclusion

JIA patients with severe arthritis-related dentofacial deformity and mandibular micrognathia had significantly restricted upper airway dimensions compared with JIA patients without dentofacial deformity and controls. The restrictions of upper airway dimension seen in the JIA+ group herein were previously associated with sleep-disordered breathing in the non-JIA background population. Further studies are needed to elucidate the role of dentofacial deformity and restricted airways in the development of sleep-disordered breathing in JIA.

Background

The temporomandibular joint (TMJ) is frequently involved in juvenile idiopathic arthritis (JIA) [1,2,3,4]. TMJ arthritis may lead to orofacial symptoms and dysfunction affecting health-related quality of life [1, 5,6,7]. TMJ involvement in skeletally immature patients may also impact dentofacial growth and development [8, 9]. The severity of JIA-related dentofacial growth disturbance depends on onset of TMJ involvement in relation to the mandibular growth trajectory [10, 11]. JIA-related dentofacial deformities span a continuum from minor dentofacial asymmetry to mandibular underdevelopment with a retrognathic position of the mandible referred to as “micrognathia” in the most severe form [8,9,10, 12].

The past decade has seen growing attention to the relationship between upper airway pharyngeal structures and dentofacial morphology; two-dimensional (2D) and recent studies three-dimensional (3D) [13,14,15,16,17] in the non-JIA background population have elucidated this relationship. Specific dentofacial morphological traits have been associated with reduced upper airway dimensions and resulting sleep-disordered breathing (SDB) in the background pediatric population. The notion is that the dentofacial skeleton serves as a scaffold for upper airway soft-tissue structures. The upper airways perform several physiologic functions including vocalization, swallowing, and respiration [18]. It stretches from the tip of the nose to the tip of the epiglottis or larynx, depending on the reference [19, 20]. In patients with mandibular retrognathia/micrognathia and a vertical mandibular growth pattern (e.g., steep occlusal plane), the retrusive mandibular position leads to a decreased intra-luminal diameter and increased upper airway resistance which, in turn, increases the risk of upper airway collapse, obstruction, and SDB [21,22,23,24]. SDB ranges from primary snoring at one extreme to complete upper airway obstruction at the other [25]. Pediatric sleep disturbances in the background population have a negative impact on children’s quality of life and physical and emotional well-being [26,27,28,29]. Sleep disturbances in school-aged children is a critical condition as good sleep hygiene is critical to behavior and intellectual performance [30]. Other recognized risk factors associated with childhood SDB in the background population are obesity, tonsillar, and adenoid hypertrophy [24].

The morphological traits associated with SDB in the background pediatric population are comparable to the dentofacial deformities in JIA patients with long-term TMJ involvement during growth. Further investigation of the relationship between JIA-related dentofacial morphology and upper airway dimensions therefore seems warranted since 1) JIA patients have a higher incidence of SDB and obstructive sleep apnea (OSA) than the background population without consistent indications of factors associated with sleep disorders in JIA [31,32,33,34], 2) TMJ involvement is a frequently occurring condition in JIA [1,2,3,4]. No research has yet elucidated the association between dentofacial deformity, upper airway dimensions, and SBD development in patients with JIA.

This study aimed to assess upper airway dimensions in patients with JIA-related dentofacial deformity and compare these patients with patients with JIA and normal facial morphology and healthy controls.

Materials and method

Population

This retrospective study included 78 patients divided into three groups: Group 1 (JIA+); JIA patients with arthritis-related mandibular retrognathia/micrognathia (n = 26). Group 2 (JIA-); JIA patients with normal mandibular appearance (n = 26) identified and matched to the JIA+ group by gender and age at a pretreatment radiological examination. Patients in the JIA+ and JIA- groups were previous or current patients affiliated with the Regional Craniofacial Clinic, Section of Orthodontics, Aarhus University, Denmark. We also included a gender- and age-matched control group (n = 26) of non-JIA subjects affiliated with the same institution that had received a cone-beam computerized tomography (CBCT) for orthodontic treatment planning of malocclusion.

Inclusion criteria for the JIA+ group: 1) Diagnosis of JIA according to the International League of Associations of Rheumatology (ILAR) criteria [35]; 2) presence of arthritis-related mandibular retrognathia/micrognathia based on findings from the clinical examination; 3) large-field-of-view CBCT taken in the 8–18-year age range before orthopedic/orthodontic or surgical treatment had been initiated; 4) no known previous tonsillectomy history.

Inclusion criteria for the JIA- group: 1) Diagnosis of JIA according to the ILAR criteria [35]; 2) no radiological signs of apparent arthritis-related dentofacial deformity based on findings from the clinical examination, 3) a large-field-of-view CBCT performed in the 8–18 year age range; 4) no known previous history of tonsillectomy.

Inclusion criteria for the Control group: 1) Non-JIA children and adolescents with a CBCT taken before orthodontic management with braces; 2) age 8–18 years; 3) no known previous history of tonsillectomy, primary snoring, or OSA; 4) no previous or current diagnosis of temporomandibular dysfunction.

Exclusion criteria for all three groups were: 1) Presence of dentofacial growth disturbances from underlying syndromes, traumas, or congenital birth defects involving the craniofacial or oropharyngeal area, 2) inadequate CBCT quality (e.g., low-quality CBCTs without clearly visualized airways or with significant artifacts.

The use of retrospective data from the electronic files of the three groups was approved by the The Danish Health Authorities and the Danish Data Protection Agency prior to initiation of the study.

3D Image processing

3D assessment of JIA-related dentofacial deformity and upper airway dimensions was obtained on institutional CBCT machines following the manufacturer’s instructions and the radiological CBCT protocol approved by the Danish Health Authority. The CBCT examinations were conducted using NewTom 3G or 5G machines (CEFLA s.c., Italy) with a 18 × 16 cm field of view. The image acquisition parameters included an approximate scanning time of 18 s with an active radiation of 3.6 s with settings of 110 kV and 3–7 mA. All CBCT scans were constructed with a 0.3 mm isotropic voxel dimension. Estimated radiation dose was 190 microSv. Scans were taken with the patient in a supine position. CBCT data obtained from CBCT scanning were exported in the DICOM (digital imaging and communications in medicine) format and imported into a specialized software program (Mimics 21.0, Materialise, Leuven, Belgium).

Assessment of dentofacial deformity

Assessment of dentofacial morphology and deformity was conducted following our previously published method[8] by which 3D information is obtained on mandibular sagittal position, vertical pattern, and asymmetries based on 23 anatomic landmarks, 12 internal planes, and six side-specific planes. For details about anatomical landmarks and constructed planes, we refer to Stoustrup et al. [8] and to the descriptions in the online supplemental material (S1, S2, S3, S4). The assessment of dentofacial deformities produces 21 morphometric outcome measures of dentofacial morphology of varying importance. In the present study, we included six of the original 21 outcome measures deemed of “high importance” for assessment of dentofacial deformity [8]. The included outcome variables were (Fig. 1a-f): total posterior mandibular height (inter-side difference to assess mandibular asymmetry), mandibular axial angle (facial asymmetry), mandibular inclination, posterior/anterior lower-face height ratio (anterior face height), mandibular sagittal position (degree of mandibular retrognathia), and mandibular occlusal inclination (steepening of the occlusal plane). Furthermore, we measured the maxillary inter-molar distance as an expression of maxillary width (transverse dimension).

Fig. 1
figure 1

Morphometric measures used to assess dentofacial deformity

Full size image

Assessment of upper-airway dimensions

In the present study, the term “upper airways” specifically refers to the “pharyngeal airways” not comprising the dimensions of the nasal cavity.

Upper airway dimensions – linear measurements and volumes

To characterize the upper airway, 3D analysis was conducted using a slightly modified version of the method described by Di Carlo et al. 2015 [20]. The threshold levels used to generate the 3D reconstructions were determined individually for each CBCT dataset. The aim was to segment the upper airway to extract information about upper airway dimensions based on acknowledged linear measurements, total upper airway volume, and the partial volumes (i.e. lower nasopharynx, velopharynx, and oropharynx). Please see online supplemental material (S1, S2, S3, S4) for details about anatomical landmarks and outcome variables for upper airway assessment. The linear measurements outcome variables were: 1) upper sagittal dimension of the nasopharyngeal airway (termed “ad2-PNS” based on the anatomical landmarks involved), 2) lower sagittal depth of the nasopharyngeal airway (termed “ad1-PNS”). The airway volume outcome variables were: 3) total upper airway volume (mm3), 4) total surface area (mm2), 5) nasopharyngeal volume (mm3), 6) velopharyngeal volume (mm3), and 7) oropharyngeal volume (mm3) (Fig. 2).

Fig. 2
figure 2

Upper airway dimensions. a and b Upper airways in relation to other anatomical structures. Green and red dots indicate anatomaical landmarks used for evaluation of dentofacial deformity. The black structure indicates the occlusal plane. c Subdivision of upper airways

Full size image

Upper airway dimensions – Cross-sectional area and hydraulic diameter

To further elucidate the airway dynamics and the risk of upper airway resistance and risk of obstruction/collapse, we used two additional upper airway outcome variables: 8) The minimal cross-sectional area of the upper airway (CS) and 9) the minimal hydraulic diameter (DH) [36]. Both CS and DH and are indicators of the upper airway intra-luminal space. Fluid dynamics and resistance to flow vary with the shape of a “pipe”. The shape of the upper airways is mostly irregular and not round. This change in shape greatly influences the CS, whereas the DH may, to a greater extent, take into account the change in shape throughout the upper airways, which is an argument for including both measures [36]. Importantly, the positions of the minimal DH and the minimal CS do not necessarily coincide in the same upper airway positions.

The CS and DH were assessed using the method described by Niu et al. [36] where an upper airway centerline is defined and consecutive “slices” are established perpendicular to the centerline to assess the CS and DH at continuous positions (slice levels) along the upper airways. The CS and DH were assessed on 50 consecutive slice levels from the top of the nasopharynx (slice 1) to the bottom of the oropharynx (slice 50). The CS and DH were defined as the smallest value obtained throughout the course of the 50 slices on the centerline for each of the two variables (Fig. 3).

Fig. 3
figure 3

Assessment of cross-sectional area (CS) and hydraulic diameter (DH) along the centerline throughout the upper airway in a patient from the JIA+ group. Each white dot represents a slice level. The middle observation represents the position of the minimum CS and DH (slice level 30). Notice how the upper assessment (slice level 5) and the lower assessment (slice level 46) have comparable DH but great difference in CS due to difference in airway shape

Full size image

Duplicate assessments of outcome measures of dentofacial deformity and airway dimensions were conducted in a blinded fashion at a minimum three-week interval to assess intra-rater agreement. All measurements were made by the same operators (JM and XN).

Statistics

An intra-class correlation coefficient (random effect model) was used to assess intra-rater reproducibility of the six variables representing dentofacial deformity and airway dimensions based on duplicate assessment of 24 random patients. Inter-group differences within each of the six outcome variables describing dentofacial deformity and the seven variables describing airway dimensions (excluding CS and DH) were assessed using the Kruskal Wallis test as the primary test. Outcome variables with a significant inter-group difference in the primary Kruskal Wallis test were further analyzed with the Wilcoxon signed-rank post-test. The level of significance was set at p = 0.05.

Statistical assessment of cross-sectional area and minimal hydraulic diameter

The interaction of the 50 consecutive slices of cross-sectional areas and hydraulic diameters throughout the upper airways calls for a more complex statistical evaluation. Plots and descriptive statistics (mean and standard error (SE)) were used to summarize the data across slices for each measure and group. Generalized additive models (GAM) smoothing estimates of mean curves were created to investigate mean curves for each measure and group. Differences between groups were estimated using three different classes of regression models of varying complexity: 1) multiple linear regression, 2) non-linear (spline) regression, and 3) mixed effect models [37, 38].

Multiple linear model: We first employed the simplest linear model suitable for the data. Each response measure was analyzed independently using a linear regression with group, slice, and their interaction as explanatory variables allowing for an ANOVA test of a group effect on the measure. This model corresponds to straight mean curves (lines) of varying slope and intercept in each group. This model thus ignores any non-linearity in the mean curves and subject-specific effects; therefore, we included another regression model.

Non-linear model: To improve the data model and account for non-linearity in the mean curves, we also fitted a b-spline regression model with equidistantly placed knots along the slices and the group variable as an explanatory variable. Graphically, this models the mean curves as non-linear slice curves/functions. However, it allows only translation (up or down) of the mean- curve across groups. This restriction only enables tests for a difference in mean curve values across groups.

Mixed effect model: The former two regression models do not take subject-specific effects into account. To adjust for this effect more appropriately, we fitted a mixed effect model with a mixed effect term corresponding to each subject. This model corresponds to each subject curve as being translated up or down in relation to the patients’ group mean (i.e. a random-intercept model in each group).

Non-linear mixed effect model: We combined the non-linear and mixed effect model and included other covariates (sex and pre-treatment age) to fully model all aspects of the dataset.

Results

Cohort characteristics are presented in Table 1. The three groups were equally distributed in terms of gender and age (Table 1). Intra-class correlations for duplicate measurements are presented in Table S5. All variables tested had an acceptable intra-rater reproducibility.

Table 1 Cohort characteristics
Full size table

Dentofacial deformity

Primary testing showed significant inter-group differences in five of the six morphometric dentofacial deformity outcomes (Table 2); total posterior mandibular height, mandibular inclination, posterior/anterior face height, mandibular sagittal position, and mandibular occlusal inclination (Fig. 1). For the five variables with a significant inter-group difference in the primary test, a secondary post-test (Wilcoxon signed-rank test) revealed that the JIA+ group was characterized by: 1) a significantly larger degree of facial asymmetry due to inter-side posterior mandibular height differences (Fig. 1a); 2) reduced mandibular vertical growth and development illustrated by a significantly larger anterior face height (Fig. 1d); 3) significantly larger mandibular inclination values (Fig. 1c); 4) mandibular occlusal inclination (Fig. 1f); 5) mandibular retrognathia illustrated by a significantly reduced mandibular sagittal position (Fig. 1e) in the JIA+ group. No significant difference for any measurement was found between JIA- and controls.

Table 2 Inter-group comparison of dentofacial deformity and dimension of airways. *Negative values indicate degree of inter-side asymmetry in millimeters. **Post-tests were conducted only for variables with a significant inter-group difference in the primary test
Full size table

Upper airway dimensions – linear measurements and volumes

Primary testing showed significant inter-group differences for upper airway dimensions (Table 2): 1) upper sagittal depth of the pharyngeal airway (ad2-PNS); 2) partial velophargyngeal volumes; 3) partial oropharyngeal volumes. Furthermore, post-testing illustrated that JIA+ had a significantly lower pharyngeal airway (Ad2-PNS distance) depth than JIA- and controls. The velopharygeal volume was significantly smaller in JIA+ than in JIA- and control subjects. The oropharyngeal volume was significantly larger in the JIA+ than in JIA- and control subjects. No significant difference in upper airway dimensions was found between JIA- and control subjects.

Upper airway dimensions – minimal cross-sectional area and hydraulic diameter

Descriptive statistics: Fig. 4 shows the mean curves and the intra-group variation of the consecutive measures of hydraulic diameters and the cross-sectional area in each group. Most notably, the mean curves appear similar in shape throughout the course of the upper airways despite considerable inter-subject variation. On Figs. 4 and 5, the JIA+ group values for CS and DH appear consistently lower than the values for the JIA- and controls for both measures. The minimal CS and DH were positioned at similar locations on the curves (slice level 29 to 31 on the centerline) (Fig. 5), which is a location in the oropharynx/velopharynx. The correlation between the two outcome measures CS and DH reveal a high correlation of 0.89 across groups with similar within-group correlations.

Fig. 4
figure 4

Average cross-sectional areas (mm2) and hydraulic diameter (mm) throughout the upper airways from each of the groups. Group 1 (JIA+), group 2 (JIA-), group 3 (controls). Solid black lines represent the mean curve values. The grey lines indicate intra-group curve values for each subject

Full size image
Fig. 5
figure 5

Comparison of cross-sectional areas (mm2) and hydraulic diameter (mm) throughout the upper airways from each of the groups. Group 1 (JIA+), group 2 (JIA-), group 3 (controls)

Full size image

Linear model: On average, the model estimated an average 28.04 mm2 difference for CS and 0.83 mm difference between JIA+ and JIA- for DH. The corresponding mean difference between controls and JIA+ groups was 10.61 mm2 for CS and 0.44 mm for DH. The ANOVA hypothesis test of no differences in mean values across groups was significant for both CS (p = \(1.74\times {10}^{-5}\)) and DH (p = \(9.36\times {10}^{-14}\)) indicating a significant smaller airway dimensions in JIA+ compared to the other two groups.

Non-linear model: The non-linear model estimated a mean inter-group difference from JIA- to JIA+ of 11.51 mm2 for CS and 0.68 mm for DH. The corresponding mean inter-group difference between JIA+ and controls was 9.98 mm2 for CS and 0.6 mm for DH. The results from the non-linear spline regressions model showed significant inter-group results (p = \(2.47\times {10}^{-6}\) for CS and p = \(8.28\times {10}^{-15}\) for DH) when the restrictive assumption of linear mean curves was relaxed. This supports that upper airway dimensions in JIA+ was significantly reduced compared to the other two groups.

Mixed effect model: The mixed effects model estimated a mean difference from group JIA+ and JIA- of 28.04 mm2 for CS and 0.83 mm for the DH. The corresponding mean differences between controls and JIA was 10.61 mm2 for CS and 0.44 mm for DH. In the mixed effects model, the overall estimations were comparable to earlier results but did not remain significant (p = \(0.126\) for CS, p = \(0.257\) for DH) except for inter-group difference in minimal CS between JIA+ and JIA- (p = 0.048).

Non-linear mixed effect model: Mean values as fitted in the non-linear mixed effect model are shown in Fig. 6. While the inter-group comparisons remain largely as in the linear mixed effect model, the models estimates, for each additional year of age at pretreatment, displayed a change of 11.55 mm2 (p < 0.05) for minimal CS and 0.3 mm (p < 0.05) for DH. Likewise, the estimated difference from boys to girls was -28.31 mm2 for minimal CS (p < 0.05) and -0.99 mm for DH (p < 0.05). As seen in Fig. 6, a 3 year older subject has on average the same effect on minimal CS and minimal DH as the difference between boys and girls.

Fig. 6
figure 6

Non-linear mixed effect model combining covariates of sex and pre-treatment age with average cross-sectional area (mm2) and hydraulic diameter (mm) within the three groups. Group 1 (JIA+), group 2 (JIA-), group 3 (controls)

Full size image

In summary, data for CS and DH were found to be inconsistent with the null-hypothesis of no mean difference between the three groups in the various models applied. The shortcomings of the assumptions in the parsimonious linear model were examined through three, more advanced, models with consistent and largely unchanged results in terms of effect estimates. The JIA+ groups seems to have significant smaller upper airway dimensions when compared to JIA- and controls. However, significant group-differences did not remain significant across all estimates when accounting for repeated measure within each subject in the mixed effect model, though the data seems to show an inter-group difference (Fig. 5). No indications of significant inter-group differences between JIA- and controls were found.

Discussion

To our knowledge, this is the first study to investigate the relationship between dentofacial deformity and upper airway dimensions in JIA subjects. The principal findings of this study were: 1) Upper airway dimensions and morphology vary greatly between individuals and within the three defined groups. 2) Subjects with JIA and related dentofacial deformity (e.g. reduced mandibular dimensions and steep mandibular/occlusal planes) display significantly restricted upper airway dimensions compared with JIA subjects with average facial morphology (JIA-) and controls. 3) The average cross-sectional areas and hydraulic diameters are restricted in most of the length of the upper airways in subjects with JIA-related dentofacial deformity compared with the two other groups. However, the average position of the minimal CS and DH were found in the same position within the oropharyngeal area in all three groups. 4) Subjects with JIA and no signs of dentofacial deformity have upper airway dimensions comparable to those of healthy controls. We believe that our findings are of considerable clinical interest, since subjects with JIA have a higher risk of SDB than the background population. However, the complex relationships between JIA and SDB remain unsolved [31, 32, 34].

Dentofacial deformity and upper-airway dimensions

The morphological signs of dentofacial deformity seen in the JIA+ group herein are comparable with previous findings [8,9,10,11,12]. We believe that the severity of the deformity in the JIA+ group may be characterized as “moderate/severe” on a continuum of JIA-associated dentofacial deformity.

Controversy prevails as to the relationship between facial morphology and upper airway dimensions. In our study, the upper airway dimensions were restricted in the JIA+ group and inter-subject variations were large in all three groups (Fig. 4). This corroborates previous studies investigating this relationship in non-JIA subjects [15, 16, 39,40,41]. Kim et al. [41] found a significantly smaller total upper airway volume in preadolescent subjects with retrognathic mandibles than in subjects with a normal posterior-anterior skeletal relationship. El and Palomo [16] found that subjects with mandibular retrognathia had significantly smaller oropharyngeal airway volumes than subjects with an average mandibular position (Class I) and subjects with protrusive mandibular position (Class III).

Restricted upper-airways and the risk of sleep-disordered breathing

The findings of the present study may indicate that the JIA+ group is at risk of developing SDB. The dimension of the pharyngeal airway (Ad2-PNS distance) was reduced in the JIA+ group. A reduced Ad2-PNS distance has been related to pediatric OSA in non-JIA population in a systematic review by Katyal et al. [22]. In addition, the velopharyngeal volume was reduced in the JIA+ group compared with the other two groups. Conversely, the oropharyngeal volume was increased in the JIA+ group compared with the other groups. This is an inconsistent finding probably related to the technical subdivision of the upper respiratory tract and the difference in length/morphology in the JIA+ group.

Other indications of a SDB risk are that the JIA+ group had an increased lower-face height, a retrognathic mandibular position, and increased mandibular and occlusal inclination. According to a systematic review and meta-analysis [42], these morphological traits are risk factors for development of pediatric OSA. Future research is warranted to elucidate the role of dentofacial morphology in subjects with JIA and SDB.

Implication of results

We used the 3D CBCT technique to capture the dimensions of the upper airway structures and facial morphology. The CBCT technique is considered a reliable method to assess upper airway dimensions [43, 44]. The importance of the third dimension was previously emphasized by Lenza et al. who stated that adequate the upper airway assessment requires the combination of linear measurements, area, and volume as no single volume or linear measurement alone depicts the actual airway morphology [45]. To capture the airway complexity, we assessed the CS and DH along the predefined centerline throughout the upper airways. This illustrated that the CS and DH vary along the centerline in the same form (shape of mean curves) with the JIA+ group displaying lower mean values throughout most of the upper airways (Fig. 5) than the other groups. Future research should study the implication of these results. Our results are notable because they coincide with findings by Arens et al. who examined the cross-sectional area of the upper airways using magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) in children with OSA and healthy controls [46]. Arens et al. found that the upper airway cross sectional area varies along the centerline between children with OSA and healthy controls with significant airway narrowing occurring continuously throughout most of the length of the upper airways in the OSA group. Arens et al. speculated that the continuous narrowing of the upper airways may be essential to the air flow resistance that characterizes subjects with OSA [33].

OSA is at the extreme end of the manifestation of SDB and has received attention in JIA research [32, 33]. OSA is characterized by increased upper airway resistance causing partial (hypopnea) or complete collapse (apnea) of the upper airways followed by increased respiratory efforts, arousals, and sleep fragmentation [47]. The findings of the present study fuel the hypothesis that JIA-associated dentofacial deformity may restrict the upper airways, which, in turn, may increase the risk of upper airway collapse. According to Susarla et al., the patency of the flexible structure of the upper airways is ensured by a balance between collapsing forces and dilating forces [23]. Collapsing forces include increased intra-luminal pressure from narrow airways and increased extra-luminal pressure from the surrounding pharyngeal related to soft tissue or certain skeletal traits [23]. According to Susarla et al., resistance to airflow is inversely proportional to the fourth power of the radius of the upper airway [23]. A decrease in upper airway cross-section therefore significantly affects airflow resistance. We therefore hypothesize that the reduced CS and DH in the JIA+ group of the present study may predispose to development of OSA based on the following notion; JIA-associated dentofacial deformity leads to upper airway narrowing followed by increased intra-luminal resistance, which, in turn, may decrease airflow and act as collapsing force on the flexible structures of the upper airways. In connection with this hypothesis, reservations must be made that OSA consists of a complex interplay between anatomical conditions, the central nervous system, and sleep-related conditions [23, 47]. To characterize OSA as an “anatomical condition” alone seems inconsistent with contemporary views.

Limitations and strengths

Our study has certain limitations that require further consideration: 1) Lowe et al. [48] reported changes in airway dimensions during the respiratory phases. However, due to the retrospective nature of our study, no control for respiratory movements (inspiration, resting, exhalation) was conducted during the CBCT acquisition. This is a limitation of the study as volume changes related to respiration phases may potentially present as systematic errors [48, 49]. 2) Another technical limitation relates to the radiological plane used for subdivision for the inferior border for the velopharynx and the superior border for the oropharynx. This plane was greatly affected by the inclination of the occlusal plane (Fig. 2b), giving the incorrect impression that the JIA+ group (with mandibular retrognathia) had a larger oropharyngeal volume than the JIA- group and controls due to a steep occlusal plan in the JIA+ group. Importantly, the volume does not inform about the airways’ regional shape, so that only by looking at the pharyngeal airway volumes would give misleading information about the airway patency and breathing ability of the subjects. 3) No group-differences remained significant across all estimates when accounting for repeated measure within each subject in the mixed effect model. We attribute the lack of inter-group significance from this model to a lack of power (small number of subjects and thus independent observations) and large inter-subject variation rather than a true lack of differences. We hypothesize that inclusion of a larger cohort would have generated a test result in line with the significant results obtained in the non-linear model and the mixed-effect model d. 4) No global agreement exists on the definition of the superior and inferior limits of the upper airways or the demarcation for partial volumes. This gives rise to different airway volumetric subdivisions among studies and hampers comparisons between studies, especially partial volume comparisons, and generation and comparison with normative values. In general, the use of volumes as an outcome measure must be considered a potential source of error as comparable volumes may be found in airways with considerable variation in shape (Fig. 7).

Fig. 7
figure 7

An illustration of inter-group differences in upper airway morphology between JIA+ and JIA-. Airways are displayed in lateral and oblique views. a) Upper airway in a patients from the JIA+ group (total volume 8,091.28 mm3). B) Upper airway in a subject from the JIA- group (total volume 8,096.69 mm3). Visual differences are appreciated in sagittal and vertical dimensions of the airways despite comparable total volumes; the JIA+ upper airway presents as a “long and narrow” upper airway

Full size image

Important strengths of this study are: 1) the use of validated 3D assessment of the dentofacial morphology and pharyngeal airway dimensions, 2) the fact that the CBCTs were taken with the patient in a supine position, which mimics the sleeping position, and 3) the inclusion of a JIA group without dentofacial deformity and a non-JIA control group. The inclusion of three groups (JIA+ , JIA-, controls) made it possible to compare dentofacial and airway morphology between subjects with JIA and healthy controls, but also between subjects with JIA with/without dentofacial deformity which is a strength to our observations.

Conclusion

In summary, JIA patients with moderate to severe dentofacial deformity have significantly restricted upper airway dimensions compared with JIA patients without dentofacial deformity and non-JIA controls. The restrictions of the upper airways seen in subjects with dentofacial deformity herein have previously been associated with SDB in the non-JIA background population. Further studies are needed to elucidate the role of dentofacial deformity and restricted upper airways in the development of sleep-disordered breathing in JIA.

Availability of data and materials

The data that support the findings of this study is considered third-party patient-owned data By Danish regulations. Restrictions apply to the availability of these data, which were used under license for the current study, and so are not publicly available. Data are however available from the authors upon reasonable request and with permission of Danish Health Authorities in the Central Denmark Region (www.stps.dk, case: 3–3013-2558/1).

Abbreviations

ad1-PNS:

Lower sagittal depth of the nasopharyngeal airway

ad2-PNS:

Upper sagittal dimension of the nasopharyngeal airway

ANOVA:

Analysis of variance

CBCT:

Cone-beam computerized tomography

CS:

Minimal cross-sectional area

DH :

Minimal hydraulic diameter

DICOM:

Digital imaging and communications in medicine

GAM:

Generalized additive models

ILAR:

International League of Associations for Rheumatology

JIA:

Juvenile idiopathic arthritis

JIA+ :

Subjects with arthritis-related mandibular retrognathia/micrognathia

JIA-:

Subjects with normal mandibular appearance

OSA:

Obstructive sleep apnea

SE:

Standard error

SDB:

Sleep-disordered breathing

TMJ:

The temporomandibular joint

2D:

Two-dimensional

3D:

Three-dimensional

References

  1. Glerup M, Stoustrup P, Matzen LH, Rypdal V, Nordal E, Frid P, et al. Longterm Outcomes of Temporomandibular Joints in Juvenile Idiopathic Arthritis: 17 Years of Followup of a Nordic Juvenile Idiopathic Arthritis Cohort. J Rheumatol. 2020;47(5):730–8. https://doi.org/10.3899/jrheum.190231.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  2. Stoll ML, Sharpe T, Beukelman T, Good J, Young D, Cron RQ. Risk factors for temporomandibular joint arthritis in children with juvenile idiopathic arthritis. J Rheumatol. 2012;39(9):1880–7. https://doi.org/10.3899/jrheum.111441.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  3. Stoustrup P, Glerup M, Bilgrau AE, Küseler A, Verna C, Christensen AE, et al. Cumulative Incidence of Orofacial Manifestations in Early Juvenile Idiopathic Arthritis: A Regional. Three-Year Cohort Study Arthritis Care Res (Hoboken). 2020;72(7):907–16. https://doi.org/10.1002/acr.23899.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  4. von Schuckmann L, Klotsche J, Suling A, Kahl-Nieke B, Foeldvari I. Temporomandibular joint involvement in patients with juvenile idiopathic arthritis: a retrospective chart review. Scand J Rheumatol. 2020;49(4):271–80. https://doi.org/10.1080/03009742.2020.1720282.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  5. Frid P, Nordal E, Bovis F, Giancane G, Larheim TA, Rygg M, et al. Temporomandibular Joint Involvement in Association With Quality of Life, Disability, and High Disease Activity in Juvenile Idiopathic Arthritis. Arthritis Care Res (Hoboken). 2017;69(5):677–86. https://doi.org/10.1002/acr.23003.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  6. Kristensen KD, Stoustrup P, Küseler A, Pedersen TK, Twilt M, Herlin T. Clinical predictors of temporomandibular joint arthritis in juvenile idiopathic arthritis: A systematic literature review. Semin Arthritis Rheum. 2016;45(6):717–32. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.semarthrit.2015.11.006.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  7. Rahimi H, Twilt M, Herlin T, Spiegel L, Pedersen TK, Küseler A, et al. Orofacial symptoms and oral health-related quality of life in juvenile idiopathic arthritis: a two-year prospective observational study. Pediatr Rheumatol Online J. 2018;16(1):47. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12969-018-0259-4.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  8. Stoustrup P, Iversen CK, Kristensen KD, Resnick CM, Verna C, Norholt SE, et al. Assessment of dentofacial growth deviation in juvenile idiopathic arthritis: Reliability and validity of three-dimensional morphometric measures. PLoS ONE. 2018;13(3): e0194177. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0194177.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  9. Stoustrup P, Traberg MS, Matzen LH, Glerup M, Küseler A, Herlin T, et al. Initial radiological signs of dentofacial deformity in juvenile idiopathic arthritis. Sci Rep. 2021;11(1):13142. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41598-021-92575-4.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  10. Fjeld MG, Arvidsson LZ, Smith HJ, Flatø B, Øgaard B, Larheim TA. Relationship between disease course in the temporomandibular joints and mandibular growth rotation in patients with juvenile idiopathic arthritis followed from childhood to adulthood. Pediatr Rheumatol Online J. 2010;22(8):13. https://doi.org/10.1186/1546-0096-8-13.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  11. Fjeld MG, Arvidsson LZ, Stabrun AE, Birkeland K, Larheim TA, Ogaard B. Average craniofacial development from 6 to 35 years of age in a mixed group of patients with juvenile idiopathic arthritis. Acta Odontol Scand. 2009;67(3):153–60. https://doi.org/10.1080/00016350902740506.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  12. Arvidsson LZ, Fjeld MG, Smith HJ, Flatø B, Øgaard B, Larheim TA. Craniofacial growth disturbance is related to temporomandibular joint abnormality in patients with juvenile idiopathic arthritis, but normal facial profile was also found at the 27-year follow-up. Scand J Rheumatol. 2010;39(5):373–9. https://doi.org/10.3109/03009741003685624.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  13. de Freitas MR, Penteado Virmond Alcazar NM, Janson G, Salvatore de Freitas KM, Castanha Henriques JF. Upper and lower pharyngeal airways in subjects with Class I and Class II malocclusions and different growth patterns. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop. 2006;130(6):742–5. doi: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ajodo.2005.01.033.

  14. Solow B, Siersbaek-Nielsen S, Greve E. Airway adequacy, head posture, and craniofacial morphology. Am J Orthod. 1984;86(3):214–23. https://doi.org/10.1016/0002-9416(84)90373-7.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  15. Castro-Silva L, Silva Monnazzi M, Spin-Neto R, Moraes M, Miranda S, Real Gabrielli MF, et al. Cone-beam evaluation of pharyngeal airway space in class I, II, and III patients. Oral Surg Oral Med Oral Pathol Oral Radiol. 2015;120(6):679–83. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.oooo.2015.07.006.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  16. El H, Palomo JM. Airway volume for different dentofacial skeletal patterns. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop. 2011;139(6):e511–21. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ajodo.2011.02.015.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  17. Ceylan I, Oktay H. A study on the pharyngeal size in different skeletal patterns. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop. 1995;108(1):69–75. https://doi.org/10.1016/s0889-5406(95)70068-4.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  18. Swab RJ. Upper Airway Imaging. Clin Chest Med. 1998;19(1):33–54. https://doi.org/10.1016/s0272-5231(05)70430-5.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  19. Guijarro-Martı´nez R, Swennen GRJ. Cone-beam computerized tomography imaging and analysis of the upper airway: a systematic review of the literature. Int J Oral Maxillofac Surg. 2011;40(11):1227–37. doi: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijom.2011.06.017.

  20. Di Carlo G, Polimeni A, Melsen B, Cattaneo PM. The relationship between upper airways and craniofacial morphology studied in 3D. A CBCT study Orthod Craniofac Res. 2015;18(1):1–11. https://doi.org/10.1111/ocr.12053.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  21. Flores-Mir C, Korayem M, Heo G, Witmans M, Major MP, Major PW. Craniofacial morphological characteristics in children with obstructive sleep apnea syndrome: a systematic review and meta-analysis. J Am Dent Assoc. 2013;144(3):269–77. https://doi.org/10.14219/jada.archive.2013.0113.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  22. Katyal V, Pamula Y, Martin AJ, Daynes CN, Kennedy JD, Sampson WJ. Craniofacial and upper airway morphology in pediatric sleep-disordered breathing: Systematic review and meta-analysis. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop. 2013;143(1):20-30.e3. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ajodo.2012.08.021.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  23. Susarla SM, Thomas RJ, Abramson ZR, Kaban LB. Biomechanics of the upper airway: Changing concepts in the pathogenesis of obstructive sleep apnea. Int J Oral Maxillofac Surg. 2010;39(12):1149–59. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijom.2010.09.007.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  24. Xu Z, Wu Y, Tai J, Feng G, Ge W, Zheng L, et al. Risk factors of obstructive sleep apnea syndrome in children. J Otolaryngol Head Neck Surg. 2020;4;49(1):11. doi: https://doi.org/10.1186/s40463-020-0404-1.

  25. Sateia MJ. International classification of sleep disorders-third edition: highlights and modifications. Chest. 2014;146(5):1387–94. https://doi.org/10.1378/chest.14-0970.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  26. Stinson JN, Hayden JA, Kohut SA, Soobiah C, Cartwright J, Weiss SK, et al. Sleep problems and associated factors in children with juvenile idiopathic arthritis: a systematic review. Pediatr Rheumatol Online J. 2014;2(12):19. https://doi.org/10.1186/1546-0096-12-19.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  27. Tan HL, Alonso Alvarez ML, Tsaoussoglou M, Weber S, Kaditis AG. When and Why to Treat the Child Who Snores? Pediatr Pulmonol. 2017;52(3):399–412. https://doi.org/10.1002/ppul.23658.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  28. Chervin RD, Hedger K, Dillon JE, Pituch KJ. Pediatric Sleep Questionnaire (PSQ): validity and reliability of scales for sleep-disordered breathing, snoring, sleepiness, and behavioral problems. Sleep Med. 2000;1;1(1):21–32. doi: https://doi.org/10.1016/s1389-9457(99)00009-x.

  29. Chervin RD, Ruzicka DL, Giordani BJ, Weatherly RA, Dillon JE, Hodges EK, et al. Sleep-Disordered Breathing, Behavior, and Cognition in Children Before and After Adenotonsillectomy. Pediatrics. 2006;117(4):e769–78. https://doi.org/10.1542/peds.2005-1837.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  30. Owens JA. Neurocognitive and behavioral impact of sleep disordered breathing in children. Pediatr Pulmonol. 2009;44(5):417–22. https://doi.org/10.1002/ppul.20981.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  31. Stinson JN, Hayden JA, AholaKohut S, Soobiah C, Cartwright J, Weiss SK, et al. Sleep problems and associated factors in children with juvenile idiopathic arthritis: a systematic review. Pediatr Rheumatol Online J. 2014;2(12):19. https://doi.org/10.1186/1546-0096-12-19.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  32. Sheng-Kai Ma K, Illescas Ralda MM, Veeravalli JJ, Wang LT, Thota E, Huang JY, et al. Patients with juvenile idiopathic arthritis are at increased risk for obstructive sleep apnoea: a population-based cohort study. Eur J Orthod.2021;13;cjab050. doi: https://doi.org/10.1093/ejo/cjab050.Online ahead of print.

  33. Ward TM, Chen ML, Landis CA, Ringold S, Beebe DW, Pike KC, et al. Congruence between polysomnography obstructive sleep apnea and the pediatric sleep questionnaire: fatigue and health-related quality of life in juvenile idiopathic arthritis. Qual Life Res. 2017;26(3):779–88. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11136-016-1475-3.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  34. Ward TM, Sonney J, Ringold S, Stockfish S, Wallace CA, Landis CA. Sleep disturbances and behavior problems in children with and without arthritis. J Pediatr Nurs. 2014;29(4):321–8. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pedn.2014.03.022.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  35. Petty RE, Southwood TR, Manners P, Baum J, Glass DN, Goldenberg J, et al. International League of Associations for Rheumatology classification of juvenile idiopathic arthritis: second revision, Edmonton, 2001. J Rheumatol. 2004;31(2):390–2.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  36. Niu X, Madhan S, Cornelis MA, Cattaneo PM. Novel three-dimensional methods to analyze the morphology of the nasal cavity and pharyngeal airway. Angle Orthod. 2021;91(3):320–8. https://doi.org/10.2319/070620-610.1.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  37. Bates D, Mächler M, Bolker B, Walker S. Fitting Linear Mixed-Effects Models Using lme4. J. Stat. Softw. 2015;67(1):1–48. https://doi.org/10.18637/jss.v067.i01

  38. Kuznetsova A, Brockhoff PB, Christensen RHB. lmerTest Package: Tests in Linear Mixed Effects Models. J. Stat. Softw. 2017;82(13):1–26. https://doi.org/10.18637/jss.v082.i13

  39. Kirjavainen M, Kirjavainen T. Upper Airway Dimensions in Class II Malocclusion. Effects of Headgear Treatment Angle Orthod. 2007;77(6):1046–53. https://doi.org/10.2319/081406-332.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  40. Lam DJ, Jensen CC, Mueller BA, Starr JR, Cunningham ML, Weaver EM. Pediatric sleep apnea and craniofacial anomalies: a population-based case-control study. Laryngoscope. 2010;120(10):2098–105. https://doi.org/10.1002/lary.21093.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  41. Kim Y, Hong J, Hwang Y, Park Y. Three-dimensional analysis of pharyngealairway in preadolescent children with differentanteroposterior skeletal patterns. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop. 2010;137(3):306.e1-11. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ajodo.2009.10.025.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  42. Flores-Mir C, Korayem M, Heo G, Witmans M, Major MP, Major PW. Craniofacial morphological characteristics in children with obstructive sleep apnea syndrome: A systematic review and meta-analysis. J Am Dent Assoc. 2013;144(3):269–77. https://doi.org/10.14219/jada.archive.2013.0113.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  43. Yamashina A, Tanimoto K, Sutthiprapaporn P, Hayakawa Y. The reliability of computed tomography (CT) values and dimensional measurements of the oropharyngeal region using cone beam CT: comparison with multidetector CT. Dentomaxillofac Radiol. 2008;37(5):245–51. https://doi.org/10.1259/dmfr/45926904.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  44. Slaats MA, Van Hoorenbeeck K, Van Eyck A, Vos WG, De Backer JW, Boudewyns A, et al. Upper airway imaging in pediatric obstructive sleep apnea syndrome. Sleep Med Rev. 2015;21:59–71. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.smrv.2014.08.001.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  45. Lenza MG, Lenza MM de O, Dalstra M, Melsen B, Cattaneo PM. An analysis of different approaches to the assessment of upper airway morphology: a CBCT study. Orthod Craniofac Res.2010;13(2):96–105. doi: https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1601-6343.2010.01482.x.

  46. Arens R, McDonough JM, Corbin AM, Rubin NK, Carroll ME, Pack AI, et al. Upper airway size analysis by magnetic resonance imaging of children with obstructive sleep apnea syndrome. Am J Respir Crit Care Med. 2003;1;167(1):65–70. doi: https://doi.org/10.1164/rccm.200206-613OC.

  47. Guilleminault C, Pelayo R, Leger D, Clerk A, Bocian RC. Recognition of sleep-disordered breathing in children. Pediatrics. 1996;98(5):871–82.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  48. Lowe AA, Gionhaku N, Takeuchi K, Fleetham JA. Three-dimensional CT reconstructions of tongue and airway in adult subjects with obstmctive sleep apnea. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop. 1986;90(5):364–74. https://doi.org/10.1016/0889-5406(86)90002-8.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  49. Grauer D, Cevidanes LSH, Styner MA, Ackerman JL, Proffit WR. Pharyngeal airway volume and shape from cone-beam computed tomography: Relationship to facial morphology. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop. 2009;136(6):805–14. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ajodo.2008.01.020.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

Download references

Funding

No funding was received for this study.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Section of Orthodontics, Aarhus University, Aarhus, Denmark

    Xiaowen Niu, Julianne Moland, Thomas Klit Pedersen & Peter Stoustrup

  2. Department of Oral and Maxillofacial Surgery, Aarhus University Hospital, Aarhus, Denmark

    Thomas Klit Pedersen

  3. Department of Mathematical Sciences, Aalborg University, Aalborg, Denmark

    Anders Ellern Bilgrau

  4. Melbourne Dental School, Faculty of Medicine, Dentistry and Health Sciences, University of Melbourne, Australia, Formerly, Section of Orthodontics, Aarhus University, Denmark, Aarhus, Denmark

    Paolo M. Cattaneo

  5. Department of Pediatrics and Adolescent Medicine, Aarhus University Hospital, Aarhus, Denmark

    Mia Glerup

Authors
  1. Xiaowen Niu
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Julianne Moland
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Thomas Klit Pedersen
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Anders Ellern Bilgrau
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  5. Paolo M. Cattaneo
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  6. Mia Glerup
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  7. Peter Stoustrup
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Contributions

TKP, MG, PMC and PS conceived the study. Data was retracted from the electronic files by JM, XN, MG and PS. Data handling was carried out by XN, JM, PMC, PS. Statistical analyses were conducted by AEB and PS. All authors analyzed the data. JM, PS, and AEB drafted the manuscript. All authors critically revised the manuscript and agreed on the final version before submission.

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Peter Stoustrup.

Ethics declarations

Ethics approval and consent to participate

The present study was approved by The Danish Health Authorities (3–3013-2558/1) and the Danish Data Protection Agency (1–16-02–679-18).

Consent for publication

Not applicable.

Competing interests

No competing interests.

Additional information

Publisher's Note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Rights and permissions

Open Access This article is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License, which permits use, sharing, adaptation, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons licence, and indicate if changes were made. The images or other third party material in this article are included in the article's Creative Commons licence, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material is not included in the article's Creative Commons licence and your intended use is not permitted by statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will need to obtain permission directly from the copyright holder. To view a copy of this licence, visithttp://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/. The Creative Commons Public Domain Dedication waiver (http://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/) applies to the data made available in this article, unless otherwise stated in a credit line to the data.

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Niu, X., Moland, J., Pedersen, T.K. et al. Restricted upper airway dimensions in patients with dentofacial deformity from juvenile idiopathic arthritis. Pediatr Rheumatol 20, 32 (2022). https://doi.org/10.1186/s12969-022-00691-w

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1186/s12969-022-00691-w

Pediatric Rheumatology

ISSN: 1546-0096