Literature DB >> 22942594

Cephalometric methods of prediction in orthognathic surgery.

Olga-Elpis Kolokitha1, Nikolaos Topouzelis.   

Abstract

Over the past decade the growing number of adult patients seeking for orthodontic treatment made orthognathic surgery popular. Surgical and orthodontic techniques have developed to the point where combined orthodontic and surgical treatment is now feasible to manage dentofacial deformity problems very satisfactorily. The prediction of orthognathic treatment outcome is an important part of orthognathic planning and the process of patient' inform consent. The predicted results must be presented to the patients prior to treatment in order to assess the treatment's feasibility, optimize case management and increase patient understanding and acceptance of the recommended treatment. Cephalometrics is a routine part of the diagnosis and treatment planning process and also allows the clinician to evaluate changes following orthognathic surgery. Traditionally cephalometry has been employed manually; nowadays computerized cephalometric systems are very popular. Cephalometric prediction in orthognathic surgery can be done manually or by computers, using several currently available software programs, alone or in combination with video images. Both manual and computerized cephalometric prediction methods are two-dimensional and cannot fully describe three-dimensional phenomena. Today, three-dimensional prediction methods are available, such as three-dimensional computerized tomography (3DCT), 3D magnetic resonance imaging (3DMRI) and surface scan/cone-beam CT. The aim of this article is to present and discuss the different methods of cephalometric prediction of the orthognathic surgery outcome.

Entities:  

Keywords:  2D cephalometry; 3D cephalometry; Orthodontics; Orthognathic surgery; Prediction

Year:  2011        PMID: 22942594      PMCID: PMC3238557          DOI: 10.1007/s12663-011-0228-7

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  J Maxillofac Oral Surg        ISSN: 0972-8270


  79 in total

1.  3D stereophotogrammetric image superimposition onto 3D CT scan images: the future of orthognathic surgery. A pilot study.

Authors:  Balvinder Khambay; Jean-Christophe Nebel; Janet Bowman; Fraser Walker; Donald M Hadley; Ashraf Ayoub
Journal:  Int J Adult Orthodon Orthognath Surg       Date:  2002

Review 2.  Digital three-dimensional image fusion processes for planning and evaluating orthodontics and orthognathic surgery. A systematic review.

Authors:  Joanneke M Plooij; Thomas J J Maal; Piet Haers; Wilfred A Borstlap; Anne Marie Kuijpers-Jagtman; Stefaan J Bergé
Journal:  Int J Oral Maxillofac Surg       Date:  2010-11-20       Impact factor: 2.789

3.  Orthognathic surgery: a hierarchy of stability.

Authors:  W R Proffit; T A Turvey; C Phillips
Journal:  Int J Adult Orthodon Orthognath Surg       Date:  1996

4.  Psychosocial predictors of satisfaction among orthognathic surgery patients.

Authors:  A A Scott; J P Hatch; J D Rugh; T J Hoffman; S M Rivera; C Dolce; R A Bays
Journal:  Int J Adult Orthodon Orthognath Surg       Date:  2000

5.  Soft-tissue change as a result of maxillary surgery. A preliminary study.

Authors:  G A Engel; R E Quan; S J Chaconas
Journal:  Am J Orthod       Date:  1979-03

6.  The accuracy of computerized prediction of the soft tissue profile: a study of 25 patients treated by means of the Le Fort I osteotomy.

Authors:  E A Eales; C Newton; M L Jones; A Sugar
Journal:  Int J Adult Orthodon Orthognath Surg       Date:  1994

7.  The cephalometric projection. Part II. Principles of image distortion in cephalography.

Authors:  J Ahlqvist; S Eliasson; U Welander
Journal:  Dentomaxillofac Radiol       Date:  1983       Impact factor: 2.419

8.  Photocephalometry: errors of projection and landmark location.

Authors:  C Phillips; J Greer; P Vig; S Matteson
Journal:  Am J Orthod       Date:  1984-09

9.  Orthognathic surgery: patient expectations; psychological profile and satisfaction with outcome.

Authors:  P M Finlay; J M Atkinson; K F Moos
Journal:  Br J Oral Maxillofac Surg       Date:  1995-02       Impact factor: 1.651

10.  Validity of a manual soft tissue profile prediction method following mandibular setback osteotomy.

Authors:  Olga-Elpis Kolokitha
Journal:  Eur J Dent       Date:  2007-10
View more
  8 in total

1.  Customized virtual surgical planning in bimaxillary orthognathic surgery: a prospective randomized trial.

Authors:  Daniel Schneider; Peer W Kämmerer; Matthias Hennig; Gerhard Schön; Daniel G E Thiem; Reinhard Bschorer
Journal:  Clin Oral Investig       Date:  2018-11-15       Impact factor: 3.573

2.  Accuracy of two-dimensional pharyngeal airway space prediction for bimaxillary orthognathic surgery.

Authors:  Amanda Lury Yamashita; Lilian Cristina Vessoni Iwaki; Gustavo Nascimento de Souza Pinto; Bárbara Aline Gerke; Mariliani Chicarelli; Liogi Iwaki Filho
Journal:  Oral Maxillofac Surg       Date:  2018-04-05

3.  Relationship between craniofacial and dental arch morphology with pharyngeal airway space in adolescents.

Authors:  Izabel de Oliveira; Raysa Pinheiro; Benedito Freitas; Peter Reher; Vandilson Rodrigues
Journal:  J Orofac Orthop       Date:  2022-05-24       Impact factor: 1.938

4.  Radiographic evaluation of orthodontic treatment by means of four different cephalometric superimposition methods.

Authors:  Marcos Augusto Lenza; Adilson Alves de Carvalho; Eduardo Beaton Lenza; Mauricio Guilherme Lenza; Hianne Miranda de Torres; João Batista de Souza
Journal:  Dental Press J Orthod       Date:  2015 May-Jun

5.  Differentiation between maxillary and malar midface position within the facial profile.

Authors:  Chimène Chalala; Joseph G Ghafari
Journal:  PeerJ       Date:  2019-12-10       Impact factor: 2.984

6.  The utility of a three-dimensional approach with T-shaped osteotomy in osseous genioplasty.

Authors:  Jung Jae Jegal; Seok Joo Kang; Jin Woo Kim; Hook Sun
Journal:  Arch Plast Surg       Date:  2013-07-17

7.  Accuracy of Dolphin visual treatment objective (VTO) prediction software on class III patients treated with maxillary advancement and mandibular setback.

Authors:  Robert J Peterman; Shuying Jiang; Rene Johe; Padma M Mukherjee
Journal:  Prog Orthod       Date:  2016-06-17       Impact factor: 2.750

8.  Sagittal Relationship between the Maxillary Central Incisors and the Forehead in Digital Twins of Korean Adult Females.

Authors:  Seoung-Won Cho; Soo-Hwan Byun; Sangmin Yi; Won-Seok Jang; Jong-Cheol Kim; In-Young Park; Byoung-Eun Yang
Journal:  J Pers Med       Date:  2021-03-13
  8 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.