| Literature DB >> 28352833 |
Antonio Cortese1, Roberto Barbaro2, Donato Troisi2, Giuseppe D'Alessio3, Maurizio Amato4, Roberto Lo Giudice5, Pier Paolo Claudio6.
Abstract
Modern concepts in the world of beauty arise from popular models, beautiful faces of actors document a bi-protrusive asset with high tension for soft tissues. Facial symmetry has been proposed as a marker of development and stability that may be important in human mate choice. For various traits any deviation from perfect symmetry can be considered a reflection of imperfect development. Additionally, bi-protrusive profile is dependent on the hormonal level regardless of male or female sex. The goal of maxillofacial surgery is to provide best results both for aesthetic and functional aspects. Following these new concepts of aesthetic of the face, new surgical procedure by osteodistraction techniques will lead to a very natural result by harmonizing the face also preventing aesthetic decay in aging faces. Ten cases with a feedback on the aesthetic results using the fivepoint scale of Likert after orthognatic surgery performed following distraction new techniques in combination with ancillary surgical procedures. The aesthetic results in all patients were highly satisfactory. All the patients accepted the new aesthetic of the face avoiding elements of discrepancy and consequently medico-legal problems.Entities:
Keywords: Aesthetic; Facial attractiveness; Facial symmetry; Osteo-distraction
Year: 2016 PMID: 28352833 PMCID: PMC5329864 DOI: 10.1515/med-2016-0077
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Open Med (Wars)
Mean aesthetic evaluation of 10 patients operated by distraction techniques selected at pre-operative, post-operative (2 years) and relative difference pre-to post-operative time following Likert scale
| Pre-operative time score | Post-operative time score (2 years) | Δ pre-post operative time score | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Upper jaw surgery 7 cases | 1,57 | 4,57 | 3 |
| Lower jaw surgery 3 cases | 1 | 4,66 | 3,66 |
Aesthetic evaluation at upper jaw of 7 patients selected at pre-operative and 2 years post-operative time following Likert scale.
| Pre-operative time score for upper jaw surgery | Post-operative time score for upper jaw surgery (2 years) | |
|---|---|---|
| Patient 1 | 1 | 5 |
| Patient 2 | 1 | 4 |
| Patient 3 | 1 | 5 |
| Patient 4 | 2 | 5 |
| Patient 5 | 2 | 4 |
| Patient 6 | 2 | 4 |
| Patient 7 | 2 | 5 |
Aesthetic evaluation at lower jaw of 3 patients selected at pre-operative and post-operative (2 years) time following Likert scale.
| Pre-operative time score for lower jaw surgery | Post-operative time score (2 years) for lower jaw surgery | |
|---|---|---|
| Patient 1 | 1 | 5 |
| Patient 2 | 1 | 4 |
| Patient 3 | 1 | 5 |
Figure 1Case 2 a) pre-operative view showing molar cross bite and anterior open bite; b) palatal distractor fixed in paramedian site by four smart lock screws and telescopic arms on molar bands for bone anchored distalization; c) Oral view during orthodontic treatment showing extraoral traction to support molar distalization; d) Post-operative extraoral view; e) Oral view at 2 years post treatment.
Figure 2Case 2 of the upper jaw surgery (table 2) showing Le-Fort I modified osteotomy line conducted under the anterior nasal spine leaving attached the perinasal muscle; a) intra operative view with inserted distractor device in a paramedian site; b) modified Le Fort I osteotomy line conducted beneath the anterior nasal spine; c) intraoral view during active distraction time; d) post operative time
Figure 3Case 3 upper jaw surgery (table 2) a) Pre-operative oral view; b) Oral view during orthodontic treatment; c) Oral view at 2 years post treatment; d) Extraoral view at 2 years post treatment