Upper Airway Assessment in Cone-Beam Computed Tomography for Screening of Obstructive Sleep Apnea Syndrome: Development of an Evaluation Protocol in Dentistry
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: The upper airways are formed by the nasal cavities, pharynx, and larynx. There are several radiographic methods that allow evaluation of the craniofacial structure. Upper airway analysis in cone-beam computed tomography (CBCT) may be useful in diagnosing some pathologies such as obstructive sleep apnea syndrome (OSAS). OSAS prevalence has increased significantly in recent decades, justified by increased obesity and average life expectancy. It can be associated with cardiovascular, respiratory, and neurovascular diseases, diabetes, and hypertension. In some individuals with OSAS, the upper airway is compromised and narrowed. Nowadays, CBCT is widely used in dentistry by clinicians. Its use for upper airway assessment would be an advantage for screening some abnormalities related to an increased risk of pathologies such as OSAS. CBCT helps to calculate the total volume of the airways and their area in different anatomical planes (sagittal, coronal, and transverse). It also helps identify regions with the highest anteroposterior and laterolateral constriction of the airways. Despite its undoubted advantages, airway assessment is not routinely performed in dentistry. There is no protocol that allows comparisons between studies, which makes it difficult to obtain scientific evidence in this area. Hence, there is an urgent need to standardize the protocol for upper airway measurement to help clinicians identify at-risk patients. OBJECTIVE: Our main aim is to develop a standard protocol for upper airway evaluation in CBCT for OSAS screening in dentistry. METHODS: To measure and evaluate the upper airways, data are obtained using Planmeca ProMax 3D (Planmeca). Patient orientation is performed in accordance with the manufacturer's indications at the time of image acquisition. The exposure corresponds to 90 kV, 8 mA, and 13,713 seconds. The software used for upper airway analysis is Romexis (version 5.1.O.R; Planmeca). The images are exhibited in accordance with the field of view of 20.1×17.4 cm, size of 502×502×436 mm, and voxel size of 400 μm. RESULTS: The protocol described and illustrated here allows for automatic calculation of the total volume of the pharyngeal airspace, its area of greatest narrowing, its location, and the smallest anteroposterior and laterolateral dimensions of the pharynx. These measurements are carried out automatically by the imaging software whose reliability is proven by the existing literature. Thus, we could reduce the possible bias of manual measurement, aiming at data collection. CONCLUSIONS: The use of this protocol by dentists will allow for standardization of the measurements and constitutes a valuable screening tool for OSAS. This protocol may also be suitable for other imaging software. The anatomical points used as reference are most relevant for standardizing studies in this field. INTERNATIONAL REGISTERED REPORT IDENTIFIER (IRRID): RR1-10.2196/41049.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.036 | 0.038 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.004 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".