Cory M Resnick1, Somi Kim2, Rachel R Yorlets3, Carly E Calabrese4, Zachary S Peacock5, Leonard B Kaban6. 1. Assistant Professor of Oral and Maxillofacial Surgery, Harvard School of Dental Medicine, Department of Plastic and Oral Surgery, Boston Children's Hospital, Boston, MA. 2. Instructor of Oral and Maxillofacial Surgery, Department of Oral and Maxillofacial Surgery, Massachusetts General Hospital, Boston, MA. 3. Clinical Research Manager, Department of Plastic and Oral Surgery, Boston Children's Hospital, Boston, MA. 4. Clinical Research Specialist, Department of Plastic and Oral Surgery, Boston Children's Hospital, Boston, MA. 5. Assistant Professor of Oral and Maxillofacial Surgery, Harvard School of Dental Medicine, Department of Oral and Maxillofacial Surgery, Massachusetts General Hospital, Boston, MA. 6. Walter C. Guralnick Distinguished Professor and Chairman Emeritus, Department of Oral and Maxillofacial Surgery, Harvard School of Dental Medicine, and Massachusetts General Hospital, Boston, MA. Electronic address: kaban.leonard@mgh.harvard.edu.
Abstract
PURPOSE: There is no universally accepted method for determining the ideal sagittal position of the maxilla in orthognathic surgery. In "Element II" of "The Six Elements of Orofacial Harmony," Andrews used the forehead to define the goal maxillary position. The purpose of this study was to compare how well this analysis correlated with postoperative findings in patients who underwent bimaxillary orthognathic surgery planned using other guidelines. The authors hypothesized that the Andrews analysis would more consistently reflect clinical outcomes than standard angular and linear measurements. MATERIALS AND METHODS: This is a retrospective cohort study of patients who had bimaxillary orthognathic surgery and achieved an acceptable esthetic outcome. Patients with no maxillary sagittal movement, obstructive sleep apnea, cleft or craniofacial diagnoses, or who were non-Caucasian were excluded. Treatment plans were developed using photographs, radiographs, and standard cephalometric measurements. The Andrews analysis, measuring the distance from the maxillary incisor to the goal anterior limit line, and standard measurements were applied to end-treatment records. The Andrews analysis was statistically compared with standard methods. RESULTS: There were 493 patients who had orthognathic surgery from 2007 through 2014, and 60 (62% women; mean age, 22.1 ± 6.8 yr) met the criteria for inclusion in this study. The mean Andrews distances were -4.8 ± 2.9 mm for women and -8.6 ± 4.6 mm for men preoperatively and -0.6 ± 2.1 mm for women and -1.9 ± 3.4 mm for men postoperatively. For women, the Andrews analysis was closer to the goal value (0 mm) postoperatively than any standard measurement (P < .001). For men, the linear distance from the A point to a vertical line tangent to the nasion from the McNamara analysis performed best (P < .001), followed by the Andrews analysis. CONCLUSION: The Andrews analysis correlated well with the final esthetic sagittal maxillary position in the present sample, particularly for women, and could be a useful tool for orthognathic surgical planning.
PURPOSE: There is no universally accepted method for determining the ideal sagittal position of the maxilla in orthognathic surgery. In "Element II" of "The Six Elements of Orofacial Harmony," Andrews used the forehead to define the goal maxillary position. The purpose of this study was to compare how well this analysis correlated with postoperative findings in patients who underwent bimaxillary orthognathic surgery planned using other guidelines. The authors hypothesized that the Andrews analysis would more consistently reflect clinical outcomes than standard angular and linear measurements. MATERIALS AND METHODS: This is a retrospective cohort study of patients who had bimaxillary orthognathic surgery and achieved an acceptable esthetic outcome. Patients with no maxillary sagittal movement, obstructive sleep apnea, cleft or craniofacial diagnoses, or who were non-Caucasian were excluded. Treatment plans were developed using photographs, radiographs, and standard cephalometric measurements. The Andrews analysis, measuring the distance from the maxillary incisor to the goal anterior limit line, and standard measurements were applied to end-treatment records. The Andrews analysis was statistically compared with standard methods. RESULTS: There were 493 patients who had orthognathic surgery from 2007 through 2014, and 60 (62% women; mean age, 22.1 ± 6.8 yr) met the criteria for inclusion in this study. The mean Andrews distances were -4.8 ± 2.9 mm for women and -8.6 ± 4.6 mm for men preoperatively and -0.6 ± 2.1 mm for women and -1.9 ± 3.4 mm for men postoperatively. For women, the Andrews analysis was closer to the goal value (0 mm) postoperatively than any standard measurement (P < .001). For men, the linear distance from the A point to a vertical line tangent to the nasion from the McNamara analysis performed best (P < .001), followed by the Andrews analysis. CONCLUSION: The Andrews analysis correlated well with the final esthetic sagittal maxillary position in the present sample, particularly for women, and could be a useful tool for orthognathic surgical planning.