# Using a Portable Ventilatory Airway Screening (PVAS) Device to Evaluate the Difference Between Upper Airway Breathing Pressure and Respiratory Flow in Skeletal Class I and Class II Growing Individuals With Retrognathic Mandible

## TL;DR

This study shows that a portable device can accurately measure breathing pressure and airflow in children with different jaw structures, offering a non-invasive alternative to traditional methods.

## Contribution

The study validates a portable ventilatory airway screening device as an accurate and non-invasive alternative to spirometry for measuring upper airway breathing parameters.

## Key findings

- The PVAS device showed high concordance with spirometry in measuring breathing pressure, volume, and velocity.
- Skeletal Class II individuals had significantly higher breathing pressure and reduced respiratory flow compared to Class I individuals.
- The PVAS device is a valid and accurate non-invasive tool for clinical use in assessing upper airway function.

## Abstract

Background

Upper airway obstruction (UAO) is a significant clinical concern due to its potential to lead to serious health issues, including obstructive sleep apnea (OSA) and cardiovascular diseases. Traditional diagnostic methods, such as spirometry, are often invasive and complex. This study aims to validate a portable ventilatory airway screening (PVAS) device as a non-invasive, cost-effective alternative for measuring upper airway breathing pressure and respiratory flow.

Objectives

To validate the accuracy of the PVAS device in measuring upper airway breathing pressure and respiratory flow by comparing its readings with those obtained from standard spirometry tests.

Methods

This cross-sectional analytical study involved 40 growing individuals aged 10-14 years, divided into two groups based on cephalometric analysis: Skeletal Class I (20 patients) and Skeletal Class II with retrognathic mandible (20 patients). Breathing pressure, volume, and velocity measurements were recorded using both the PVAS device and spirometry, and their accuracy was compared.

Results

The PVAS device showed high concordance with spirometry results, demonstrating significant accuracy in measuring breathing pressure, volume, and velocity. Skeletal Class II individuals exhibited significantly higher breathing pressure and reduced respiratory flow compared to Class I individuals, as measured by the PVAS device.

Conclusion

The PVAS device is a valid and accurate tool for non-invasive measurement of upper airway breathing pressure and respiratory flow. Its ease of use and reliability make it a valuable tool for clinical practice, particularly in the early diagnosis and management of airway obstructions.