Mandibular Advancement of Anterior Segmental Osteotomy for Aesthetic Correction of Mandibular Retrusion

Department of Plastic and Reconstructive Surgery, Baik Hospital, Inje University, Busan, South Korea.
The Journal of craniofacial surgery (Impact Factor: 0.68). 05/2012; 23(3):742-5. DOI: 10.1097/SCS.0b013e31824dbbf2
Source: PubMed

ABSTRACT Advancement genioplasty to achieve aesthetic improvement was performed; however, the more genioplasty was advanced, the worse the depth of the labiomental fold became. Therefore, our hospital applied not only advancement of genioplasty but also rotational advancement of anterior segmental osteotomy (ASO) for satisfactory aesthetic lines.
From January 2008 to March 2010, our hospital operated on 10 patients who showed not only convexity profile with posterior divergent but also small SNB and microgenia in the cephalometric analysis. Their mean age was 24.8 years, and we had them followed up for at least 6 months. The surgical technique was contrary to the ASO setback, which means a rotational advancement and an average 5-mm advancement of the ASO segment, adding an average of 6- to 7-mm advancement of genioplasty.
Postoperative results in the cephalometric analysis showed a good balance of the lower part of the face. Average SNB was increased from 69.96 to 72.88 degrees. The pogonion of the soft tissue came forward on an average of 7.18 mm and superiorly on an average of 1.93 mm. The inclination of L(1)MP was decreased from 100.00 to 91.99 degrees, but it was within the reference range. The labiomental fold was not deeper. We checked that spaces created by the anterior segmental osteotomy and advancement of genioplasty were filled with new bone through follow-up x-ray density images.
If balance of the lower part of the face with mandibular retrusion is insufficient using advancement of genioplasty, our hospital also applied rotational advancement of ASO. This operative technique not only was relatively simple and applied less pressure but also made a new B point.

Download full-text


Available from: Hook Sun, Sep 01, 2014
1 Follower
  • [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: The vast majority of patients requesting aesthetic enlargement of their chins have a class II skeletal deformity secondary to a small mandible. Class II skeletal patterns are frequently associated with abnormalities of lower face height, which, in turn, affect labiomental fold morphology. Of 68 patients who were to undergo sagittal advancement of their chins, 88 percent were considered to have abnormal labiomental fold morphology that was closely related to abnormalities of the facial height. Patients with decreased lower face height (40 percent) had exaggerated, deepened folds with acutely closed angles between the lower lip and chin pad, whereas those with increased lower face height (25 percent) had shallow, effaced folds. Patients with normal lower face height had variable fold morphology. Isolated sagittal advancement and/or simultaneous advancement and vertical shortening deepened the labiomental fold and closed the angle between the chin pad and lower lip. Simultaneous advancement and lengthening tended to deemphasize the fold, making it appear less deep in 20 of 34 patients, or at least mitigated further accentuation of the fold in 14 of 34 patients. Altered labiomental morphology and its relationship to the class II skeletal deformity is discussed. Treatment planning decisions are suggested, taking into account labiomental aesthetics and how they are influenced by advancement genioplasty.
    Plastic &amp Reconstructive Surgery 12/1991; 88(5):760-7. · 3.33 Impact Factor
  • [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: Maxillary and mandibular anterior segmental osteotomies (ASO) are ways to correct disharmony in the lip (contour, lip seal, and profile) and occasional dentoalveolar malocclusion. We performed 23 maxillary setback ASO, three maxillary advancement ASO, 21 mandibular setback ASO, and six mandibular advancement ASO in 28 patients to improve their lower facial profile. Other combined operative procedures include nine LeFort 1 osteotomies, four bilateral mandibular ramus osteotomies, two genioplasties, four mandibular angle contouring procedures, two reduction malar plasties, two piriform augmentations with bone graft, and a facelift for correcting of long faces, asymmetric faces, severe malocclusions, microgenias, prominent mandibular angles, prominent malar eminences, piriform recessions, and an aging face. Twenty five patients were satisfied with the results. Two patients complained of an over-recessed lip region, and one of septal deviation. There were no other significant complications or relapses throughout the followup period (9-30 months). Maxillary and mandibular ASO are effective, selective, relatively safe, and simple methods for correcting lower facial profile disharmony to attain a satisfactory aesthetic facial contour.
    Aesthetic Plastic Surgery 02/1993; 17(2):129-37. DOI:10.1007/BF02274734 · 1.19 Impact Factor
  • [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: This retrospective study was undertaken in order to compare the objective and subjective outcomes of the osteoplastic and alloplastic genioplasties. Of the 76 patients that underwent augmentation or advancement genioplasty, 34 were subjects of osteoplastic genioplasty and 42 received implants. Twenty seven of 34 patients who underwent osteotomy and 32 of 42 patients whose chins were augmented with an implant responded to the questionnaires. The results revealed that both groups were highly satisfied, with a slightly higher satisfaction rate for those who underwent osteotomy. The morbidity was the same for both procedures. However, the soft tissue response was more predictable for the osteoplastic genioplasty. The cervicomental angle improved more with the osteoplastic genioplasty. Based on our experience and conclusions from this study, we recommend the osteoplastic genioplasty for every patient. However, for patients in the older age group, particularly those with a small degree of microgenia, alloplastic genioplastic can be justified.
    Aesthetic Plastic Surgery 02/1990; 14(3):199-206. DOI:10.1097/00006534-199107000-00056 · 1.19 Impact Factor
Show more