Download PDF
CC BY-NC-ND 4.0 · Eur J Dent 2007; 01(04): 202-211
DOI: 10.1055/s-0039-1698340
Original Article
Dental Investigation Society

Validity of a Manual Soft Tissue Profile Prediction Method Following Mandibular Setback Osteotomy

Olga - Elpis Kolokitha
a   Department of Orthodontics, School of Dentistry, Aristotle University of Thessaloniki, Thessaloniki
› Author Affiliations
Further Information

Publication History

Publication Date:
27 September 2019 (online)

  PDF Download Permissions and Reprints

ABSTRACT

Objectives: The aim of this study was to determine the validity of a manual cephalometric method used for predicting the post-operative soft tissue profiles of patients who underwent mandibular setback surgery and compare it to a computerized cephalometric prediction method (Dentofacial Planner). Lateral cephalograms of 18 adults with mandibular prognathism taken at the end of presurgical orthodontics and approximately one year after surgery were used.

Methods: To test the validity of the manual method the prediction tracings were compared to the actual post-operative tracings. The Dentofacial Planner software was used to develop the computerized post-surgical prediction tracings. Both manual and computerized prediction printouts were analyzed by using the cephalometric system PORDIOS. Statistical analysis was performed by means of t-test.

Results: Comparison between manual prediction tracings and the actual post-operative profile showed that the manual method results in more convex soft tissue profiles; the upper lip was found in a more prominent position, upper lip thickness was increased and, the mandible and lower lip were found in a less posterior position than that of the actual profiles. Comparison between computerized and manual prediction methods showed that in the manual method upper lip thickness was increased, the upper lip was found in a more anterior position and the lower anterior facial height was increased as compared to the computerized prediction method.

Conclusions: Cephalometric simulation of post-operative soft tissue profile following orthodonticsurgical management of mandibular prognathism imposes certain limitations related to the methods implied. However, both manual and computerized prediction methods remain a useful tool for patient communication. (Eur J Dent 2007;1:202-211)

Key words

Orthognathic surgery - Mandibular setback - Prediction - Cephalometry - Soft tissue profile
 

  • References

  • 1 Eckhardt CE, Cunningham SJ. How predictable is orthognathic surgery. Eur J Orthod 2004; 26: 303-309
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 2 Knowles CC. Changes in the profile following surgical reduction of mandibular prognathism. Br J Plast Surg 1965; 18: 432-434
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 3 Hersey HG, Smith LH. Soft tissue profile change associated with surgical correction of prognathic mandible. Am J Orthod 1974; 65: 485-502
    Google Scholar
  • 4 Lines PA, Steinhauser WW. Soft tissue changes in relationship to movement of hard structures in orthognathic surgery: a preliminary report. J Oral Surg 1974; 32: 891-896
    Google Scholar
  • 5 Gaggl A, Schultes G, Karcher H. Changes in soft tissue profile after sagittal split ramus osteotomy and retropositioning of the mandible. J Oral Maxillofac Surg 1999; 57: 542-546
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 6 Wolford LM, Hilliard FW, Dugan DJ. Surgical Treatment Objective. A Systematic Approach to the Prediction Tracing. St. Louis: Mosby Year Book; 1985: 054-074
    Google Scholar
  • 7 McNeil RW, Proffit WR, White RP. Cephalometric prediction of orthognathic surgery. Angle Orthod 1972; 42: 154-164
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 8 Henderson D. The assessment and management of bony deformities of the middle and lower face. Br J Plast Surg 1974; 66: 378-396
    Google Scholar
  • 9 Bench RW, Gugino CF, Hilgers JJ. Bioprogressive therapy: Part 3 - Visual Treatment Objective. J Clin Orthod 1977; 11: 744-763
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 10 Moshiri F, Jung ST, Sclaroff A, Marsh JL, Gay DW. Orthognathic and craniofacial surgical diagnosis and treatment planning: A visual approach. J Clin Orthod 1982; 16: 037-059
    Google Scholar
  • 11 Bhatia SN, Sowray JH. A computer-aided design for orthognathic surgery. Br J Oral Maxillofac Surg 1984; 22: 237-253
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 12 Harradine NWT, Burnie DJ. Computerized prediction of the results of orthognathic surgery. J Maxillofac Surg 1985; 13: 245-249
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 13 Walters H, Walters DH. Computerised planning of maxillo-facial osteotomies: the program and its clinical applications. Br J Oral Maxillofac Surg 1986; 24: 178-189
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 14 Seeholzer H, Walker R. Kieferorthopaedische und kieferchirurgische Behandlungsplanung mit dem Computer am Beispiel des Dentofacial Planners. Int Quintessenz 1991; 42: 059-067
    Google Scholar
  • 15 Athanasiou AE, Kragskov J. Computerized cephalometric systems. In: Athanasiou AE. Orthodontic Cephalometr. Mosby-Wolfe; London: 1995: 231-240.
    Google Scholar
  • 16 Loh S, Heng JK, Ward-Booth P, Winchester L, McDonald F. A radiographic analysis of computer prediction in conjunction with orthognathic surger. Int J Oral Maxillofac Surg 2001; 30: 259-263
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 17 McCollum TG. TOMAC: An orthognathic treatment planning system. Part 3. VTO construction in the vertical dimension. J Clin Orthod 2001; 35: 478-490
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 18 Cousley RRT, Grant E, Kindelan JD. The validity of computerized orthognathic prediction. J Orthod 2003; 30: 149-154
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 19 Power G, Breckon J, Sherriff M, Donald MC. Dolphin Imaging Software: an analysis of the accuracy of cephalometric dizitization and orthognathic predictio. Int J Oral Maxillofac Surg 2005; 34: 619-626
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 20 Keim RG, Economides JK, Hoffman P, Phillips HW, Scholz RP. Computers in orthodontics. JCO roundtables. J Clin Orthod 1992; 26: 539-550
    Google Scholar
  • 21 Kolokitha O-E, Athanasiou AE, Tuncay OE. Validity of computerized predictions of dentoskeletal and soft tissue profile changes after mandibular setback and maxillary impaction osteotomies. Int J Adult Orthod Orthognath Surg 1996; 11: 137-152
    Google Scholar
  • 22 Wenzel A, Williams S, Ritzau M. Changes in head posture and nasopharyngeal airway following surgical correction of mandibular prognathism. Eur J Orthod 1989; 11: 37-42
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 23 Solow B, Tallgren A. Natural head position in standing subjects. Acta Odontol Scand 1971; 29: 519-607
    Google Scholar
  • 24 Proffit WR. Treatment planning: The search of wisdom. In. (eds) Surgical - Orthodontic Treatment Proffit WR, White RP,Mosby Year Book; St. Louis: 1991: 142-191
    Google Scholar
  • 25 Jensen AC, Sinclair PM, Wolford LM. Soft tissue changes associated with double Jaw surgery. Am J Orthod Dentofac Orthop 1992; 101: 266-275
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 26 Gjorup H, Athanasiou AE. Soft tissue and dentoskeletal profile changes associated with mandibular setback osteotom. Am J Orthod Dentofac Orthop 1991; 100: 312-323
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 27 Coben SE. Basion Horizontal. An Integrated Concept of Craniofacial Growth and Cephalometric Analysi. Computer Cephalometrics Associated; Jenkintown, Pennsylvania: 1986: 0
    Google Scholar
  • 28 Houston WJB. The analysis of error in orthodontic measurements. Am J Orthod 1983; 83: 382-390
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 29 Kajikawa Y. Changes in soft tissue profile after surgical correction of skeletal Class III malocclusion. J Oral Surg 1979; 37: 167-74
    Google Scholar
  • 30 Wilmot DR. Soft tissue profile changes following correction of Class III malocclusions by mandibular surgery. Br J Orthod 1981; 8: 175-181
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 31 Cousley RRJ, Grant E, Kindelan JD. The validity of computerized orthognathic predictions. J Orthod 2003; 30: 149-154
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 32 Cousley RRJ, Grant E. The accuracy of preoperative orthognathic predictions. Br J Oral Maxillofac Surg 2004; 42: 096-104
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 33 Koh CH, Chew MT. Predictability of soft tissue profile changes following bimaxillary surgery in skeletal class III Chinese patients. J Oral Maxillofac Surg 2004; 62: 1505 -1509
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 34 Chunmaneechote P, Friede H. Mandibular setback osteotomy: facial soft tissue behaviour and possibility to improve the accuracy of the soft tissue profile prediction with the use of a computerized cephalometric program: Quick Ceph Image Pro: v. 2.5. Clin Orthod Res 1999; 2: 085 -098
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 35 Techalertpaisarn P, Kuroda T. Three-dimensional computer graphic demonstration of facial soft tissue changes in mandibular prognathic patients after mandibular sagittal ramus osteotomy. Int J Adult Orthod Orthognath Surg 1998; 13: 217-225
    Google Scholar
  • 36 Mobarak KA, Krogstad O, Espeland L, Lyberg T. Factors influencing the predictability of soft tissue profile changes following mandibular setback surgery. Angle Orthod 2001; 71: 216-227
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 37 Athanasiou AE, Mavreas D, Toutountzakis N, Ritzau M. Skeletal stability after surgical correction of mandibular prognathism by vertical ramus osteotomy. Eur J Orthod 1992; 14: 117-124
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 38 Konstiantos KA, O’Reilly MT, Close J. The validity of the prediction of soft tissue profile changes after LeFort I osteotomy using the dentofacial planner (computer software). Am J Orthod Dentofac Orthop 1994; 105: 241-249
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 39 Eales EA, Jones ML, Sugar A. The accuracy of a computerized prediction of the soft tissue profile: A study of 25 patients treated by means of the Le Fort I osteotomy. Int J Orthod Orthognath Surg 1994; 9: 141-152
    Google Scholar
  • 40 Csaszar GR, Bruker-Csaszar B, Niederdellmann H. Prediction of soft tissue profiles in orthodontic surgery with Dentofacial Planner. Int J Adult Orthod Orthognath Surg 1999; 14: 285-290
    Google Scholar
  • 41 Lew KKK. The reliability of computerized cephalometric soft tissue prediction following bimaxillary anterior subapical osteotomy. Int J Adult Orthod Orthognath Surg 1992; 7: 097-101
    Google Scholar
  • 42 Aharon PA, Eisig S, Cisneros GJ. Surgical prediction reliability: A comparison of two computer software systems. Int J Adult Orthod Orthognath Surg 1997; 12: 065-078
    Google Scholar
  • 43 Jones RM, Khambay BS, McHugh S, Ayoub AF. The validity of a computer-assisted simulation system for orthognathic surgery (CASSOS) for planning the surgical correction of class III skeletal deformities: single-jaw versus bimaxillary surgery. Int J Oral Maxillofac Surg Epub 2007 Jul 13. 2007; 36: 900-908
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar