PURPOSE: The aim of this study was to evaluate skeletal stability after double-jaw surgery for correction of skeletal Class III malocclusion to assess whether there were any differences between wire and rigid fixation of the mandible. PATIENTS AND METHODS: Thirty-seven Class III patients had Le Fort I osteotomy stabilized with plate and screws for maxillary advancement. Bilateral sagittal split osteotomy for mandibular setback was stabilized with wire osteosynthesis and maxillomandibular fixation for 6 weeks in 20 patients (group 1) and with rigid internal fixation in 17 patients (group 2). Lateral cephalograms were taken before surgery, immediately after surgery, 8 weeks after surgery, and 1 year after surgery. RESULTS: Before surgery, both groups were balanced with respect to linear and angular measurements of craniofacial morphology. One year after surgery, maxillary sagittal stability was excellent in both groups, and bilateral sagittal split osteotomy accounted for most of the total horizontal relapse observed. In group 1, significant correlations were found between maxillary advancement and relapse at the posterior maxilla and between mandibular setback and postoperative counterclockwise rotation of the ramus and mandibular relapse. In group 2, significant correlations were found between mandibular setback and intraoperative clockwise rotation of the ramus and between mandibular setback and postoperative counterclockwise rotation of the ramus and mandibular relapse. No significant differences in postoperative skeletal and dental stability between groups were observed except for maxillary posterior vertical position. CONCLUSIONS: Surgical correction of Class III malocclusion after combined maxillary and mandibular procedures appears to be a fairly stable procedure independent of the type of fixation used to stabilize the mandible.
PURPOSE: The aim of this study was to evaluate skeletal stability after double-jaw surgery for correction of skeletal Class III malocclusion to assess whether there were any differences between wire and rigid fixation of the mandible. PATIENTS AND METHODS: Thirty-seven Class III patients had Le Fort I osteotomy stabilized with plate and screws for maxillary advancement. Bilateral sagittal split osteotomy for mandibular setback was stabilized with wire osteosynthesis and maxillomandibular fixation for 6 weeks in 20 patients (group 1) and with rigid internal fixation in 17 patients (group 2). Lateral cephalograms were taken before surgery, immediately after surgery, 8 weeks after surgery, and 1 year after surgery. RESULTS: Before surgery, both groups were balanced with respect to linear and angular measurements of craniofacial morphology. One year after surgery, maxillary sagittal stability was excellent in both groups, and bilateral sagittal split osteotomy accounted for most of the total horizontal relapse observed. In group 1, significant correlations were found between maxillary advancement and relapse at the posterior maxilla and between mandibular setback and postoperative counterclockwise rotation of the ramus and mandibular relapse. In group 2, significant correlations were found between mandibular setback and intraoperative clockwise rotation of the ramus and between mandibular setback and postoperative counterclockwise rotation of the ramus and mandibular relapse. No significant differences in postoperative skeletal and dental stability between groups were observed except for maxillary posterior vertical position. CONCLUSIONS: Surgical correction of Class III malocclusion after combined maxillary and mandibular procedures appears to be a fairly stable procedure independent of the type of fixation used to stabilize the mandible.