Journal of Applied Physiology
HOME HELP FEEDBACK SUBSCRIPTIONS ARCHIVE SEARCH TABLE OF CONTENTS
QUICK SEARCH:   [advanced]


     

J Appl Physiol 86: 1638-1643, 1999;
8750-7587/99 $5.00
This Article
Right arrow Full Text Free
Right arrow Full Text (PDF) Free
Right arrow Submit a response
Right arrow Alert me when this article is cited
Right arrow Alert me when eLetters are posted
Right arrow Alert me if a correction is posted
Right arrow Citation Map
Services
Right arrow Email this article to a friend
Right arrow Similar articles in this journal
Right arrow Similar articles in PubMed
Right arrow Alert me to new issues of the journal
Right arrow Download to citation manager
Citing Articles
Right arrow Citing Articles via HighWire
Right arrow Citing Articles via Google Scholar
Google Scholar
Right arrow Articles by Amis, T. C.
Right arrow Articles by Wheatley, J. R.
Right arrow Search for Related Content
PubMed
Right arrow PubMed Citation
Right arrow Articles by Amis, T. C.
Right arrow Articles by Wheatley, J. R.
Vol. 86, Issue 5, 1638-1643, May 1999

Nasal vestibule wall elasticity: interactions with a nasal dilator strip

T. C. Amis, J. P. Kirkness, E. di Somma, and J. R. Wheatley

Department of Respiratory Medicine, Westmead Hospital, and University of Sydney, Westmead, New South Wales 2145, Australia

We studied the effect of an adhesive external nasal dilator strip (ENDS) on external nasal geometry in 20 healthy Caucasian adults (10 men, 10 women; age 21-45 yr). The recoil force exerted by ENDS was estimated by bending the device (n = 10) with known weights. In the horizontal direction, a small/medium-sized ENDS in situ exerted a unilateral recoil force of 21.4-22.6 g. Application of ENDS resulted in a displacement of the lateral nasal vestibule walls that had both anterosuperior and horizontal components and that was maintained over an 8-h period. The resultant unilateral nasal vestibule wall displacement at the tip of the device was at 47.6 ± 2.0° to the horizontal (as related to the plane of the device when in situ) and had a magnitude of 3.5 ± 0.1 mm. ENDS increased external nasal cross-sectional area by 23.0-65.3 mm2. Nasal vestibule wall compliance was estimated at 0.05-0.16 mm/g. Thus ENDS applies a relatively constant abducting force irrespective of nasal width. Variable responsiveness to ENDS may be related to differences in elastic properties of the nasal vestibule wall.

upper airway; pressure-flow relationships; nasal wall compliance


This article has been cited by other articles:


Home page
 Journal of the American Dental AssociationHome page
A. J. MOSES and M. LIEBERMAN
The effect of external nasal dilators on blood oxygen levels in dental patients
J Am Dent Assoc, January 1, 2003; 134(1): 97 - 101.
[Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

Home page
 J. Appl. Physiol.Home page
T. E. Goetz, M. Manohar, A. S. Hassan, and G. J. Baker
Nasal strips do not affect pulmonary gas exchange, anaerobic metabolism, or EIPH in exercising Thoroughbreds
J Appl Physiol, June 1, 2001; 90(6): 2378 - 2385.
[Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

Home page
 J. Appl. Physiol.Home page
J. M. Gehring, S. R. Garlick, J. R. Wheatley, and T. C. Amis
Nasal resistance and flow resistive work of nasal breathing during exercise: effects of a nasal dilator strip
J Appl Physiol, September 1, 2000; 89(3): 1114 - 1122.
[Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

Home page
 ChestHome page
W. A. Broughton
Nasal Dilation, Sleep, and What Is Hypopnea?
Chest, September 1, 2000; 118(3): 571 - 572.
[Full Text] [PDF]


HOME HELP FEEDBACK SUBSCRIPTIONS ARCHIVE SEARCH TABLE OF CONTENTS
Visit Other APS Journals Online