Article

Surgical prediction of skeletal and soft tissue changes in Class III treatment.

Department of Orthodontics, Faculty of Dentistry, Federal University of Rio de Janeiro, Rio de Janeiro, Brazil.
Journal of oral and maxillofacial surgery: official journal of the American Association of Oral and Maxillofacial Surgeons (Impact Factor: 1.28). 04/2012; 70(4):e290-7. DOI: 10.1016/j.joms.2012.01.001
Source: PubMed

ABSTRACT The purpose of this study was to study the treatment outcomes and accuracy of the digital prediction using Dolphin Imaging Software and the actual postoperative outcome in subjects presenting Class III malocclusions.
Maxillary advancement surgery was performed in group 1, and maxillary advancement was combined with mandibular setback surgery in group 2. Predictive cephalometric tracings were made using Dolphin Imaging Software.
Before surgery, the maxillary deficiency was significantly greater in group 1 than in group 2, and the mandibular length was significantly greater in group 2. Surgical reductions in mandibular length and angle were significantly greater 12 months after surgery than indicated by the predictive cephalometric tracings.
In groups 1 and 2, maxillary advancement surgery was performed in accordance with the Dolphin Imaging Software. The mandibular setback surgery performed was beyond the established plan, but without clinical implications. Mandibular dentoskeletal measurements showed a greater correlation with the profile than the maxillary measurements.

0 Followers
 · 
137 Views
  • [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: The aim of this study was to evaluate hard and soft tissue change after bimaxillary surgery in class III patients by focusing on sella, nasion, A point (SNA) and sella, nasion, B point (SNB) angle and aesthetic outcome. The sample consisted of 96 skeletal Class III patients (42 women, 54 men) with a mean age of 25 years with standard deviation (SD) of 8.4. The youngest patient was 16-years-old and the oldest 51-years-old at the time of surgery. In total, seven skeletal parameters, eight soft tissue parameters, and two dental parameters were evaluated on the cephalograms. At the beginning of the treatment 49 Patients had SNA between 80° and 84°, 34 had SNA of less than 80° and 13 had SNA of more than 84°. Post surgically, 25 patients had SNA of 78°-84°, 19 had SNA less than 78° and 52 patients had SNA of more than 84°. Out of 96 patients 22 had SNB of 78°-82° before surgery, 16 had less than 78° and 58 had SNA of more than 84°. Postoperatively, we measured SNB of 78°-80° in 42, less than 78° in 18 and of more than 82° in 36 patients. The inclination of the maxilla relative to the cranial base changed from 7.2° (SD = 4)-8° (SD = 5.1) and the mandible changed from 35.7° (SD = 6.6) to 36° (SD = 6.3) postoperatively which was not significant. The distance from upper lip to E-line increased by 2.6 mm (SD = 3.9) after surgery (P < 0.001), while, the lower lip distance to E-line decreased slightly by 0.9 mm (SD = 3.2) (P < 0.01). Nasolabial angle was decreased by 9.5° (SD = 9.4) after surgery (P < 0.001). The nose prominence also decreased from 18.2 mm (SD = 3.5) -16.5 mm (SD = 3.3). Although in many cases we did not have a SNA angle or SNB angle in normal range but a good aesthetic outcome have been observed. Consequently our study showed that soft tissue change and aesthetic aspects should be considered in surgical planning and achieving SNA angle or SNB angle of norm range should not be the only goal. As we could show the advancement of maxilla will result in a better lip and nose profile and this should be considered in treatment planning.
    07/2014; 5(2):157. DOI:10.4103/0975-5950.154819
  • [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: The aim of this study was to evaluate the effects of different surgical procedures on soft tissue and skeletal changes.
    Journal of Orofacial Orthopedics / Fortschritte der Kieferorthopädie 07/2014; 75(4). DOI:10.1007/s00056-014-0224-x · 0.82 Impact Factor
  • [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: To correct dentofacial deformities, a combination of orthodontic treatment and orthognathic surgery is needed. Prediction software packages are beneficial in treatment planning and achieving improved outcomes, but before using any software, its reliability and reproducibility must be assessed. The aim of this study was to evaluate the accuracy of 2-dimensional Dolphin (version 10; Dolphin Imaging & Management Solutions, Chatsworth, Calif) and 3-dimensional Maxilim (Medicim, Sint-Niklaas, Belgium) softwares in predicting the soft-tissue profiles of patients who had Le Fort I osteotomies. The presurgical and postsurgical cone-beam computed tomography synthesized lateral cephalograms of 13 patients were collected. Using the Dolphin and Maxilim softwares, the postsurgical profiles were predicted. The positions of the soft-tissue landmarks in profile views were compared with landmarks in the postsurgical photographs. The data were analyzed with the coefficient of reliability and paired-sample t tests. The alpha values of the interclass correlations for each landmark in the x and y planes were between 0.96 and 0.99, except for stomion superior in Maxilim (0.83). The 95% confidence interval and the absolute mean of the error showed that errors in the Dolphin software were greater than those in the Maxilim software, but the differences were not significant (P >0.05), except for soft-tissue A-point. The greatest errors were seen in the chin region. The prediction errors of the nasolabial and mentolabial angles were greater; the prediction error in the Dolphin software was 9°, which has clinical significance. The Dolphin and Maxilim softwares are both appropriate for clinical use. Their inaccuracies in the prediction of the chin region should be considered in complicated surgical planning.
    American journal of orthodontics and dentofacial orthopedics: official publication of the American Association of Orthodontists, its constituent societies, and the American Board of Orthodontics 11/2013; 144(5):654-62. DOI:10.1016/j.ajodo.2013.06.019 · 1.44 Impact Factor