Katrin Willinger1, Julia Cede2, Godoberto Guevara-Rojas3, Klaus Sinko4, Michael Figl5, Kurl Schicho6, Stefan Nemec7, Clemens Klug8. 1. Radiographer and Researcher, Department of Craniofacial, Maxillofacial, and Oral Surgery, University Clinic of Craniofacial and Maxillofacial Surgery, Medical University of Vienna, Vienna, Austria. Electronic address: n09501464@students.meduniwien.ac.at. 2. Resident, Department of Craniofacial, Maxillofacial, and Oral Surgery, University Clinic of Craniofacial and Maxillofacial Surgery, Medical University of Vienna, Vienna, Austria. 3. Researcher, University of Applied Sciences, FH Campus Wien, Wien, Austria. 4. Orthodontist, Department of Craniofacial, Maxillofacial, and Oral Surgery, University Clinic of Craniofacial and Maxillofacial Surgery, Medical University of Vienna, Vienna, Austria. 5. Professor and Physicist, Center for Medical Physics and Biomedical Engineering, Medical University of Vienna, Vienna, Austria. 6. Professor and Senior Researcher, Department of Craniofacial, Maxillofacial, and Oral Surgery, University Clinic of Craniofacial and Maxillofacial Surgery, Medical University of Vienna, Vienna, Austria. 7. Professor and Radiologist, University Clinic of Radiology, Medical University of Vienna, Vienna, Austria. 8. Professor and Senior Physician, Department of Craniofacial, Maxillofacial, and Oral Surgery, University Clinic of Craniofacial and Maxillofacial Surgery, Medical University of Vienna, Vienna, Austria.
Abstract
PURPOSE: In planning intraoral quadrangular Le Fort II osteotomy (IQLFIIO), simulation of hard and soft tissue changes will be important at the infraorbital, Le Fort I, and incisor level. The aim of our study was to evaluate a new method for visualization and quantification. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Three different methods of quantification were compared: the point-to-point (PTP) measurement, which has been viewed as the reference standard; part comparison analysis (PCA); and a new method, the midfacial advancement line (MFAL) measurement. We performed a measurement comparison study using the Bland-Altman method to measure agreement and enrolled patients with midfacial deficiency and Class III malocclusion who had undergone IQLFIIO. The primary predictor variable was the method of measurement. The primary outcome variable was the amount of midfacial advancement. We also investigated the time required, visualization quality, and interobserver agreement. RESULTS: The sample included 12 subjects with a mean age of 21.6 years; 7 patients were male. The PTP and MFAL showed no significant observer dependence. The advancement measured with PTP and MFAL showed no significant differences. However, the advancement measured using MFAL and PCA showed a significant difference. The highest rating of visualization was found for MFAL. The time requirements were similar for all 3 methods. CONCLUSIONS: Our results have shown that the MFAL is a suitable method for visualization and quantification of soft and hard tissue changes at all 3 face levels in 1 image. It could be a valuable tool for virtual planning of midfacial advancement surgery.
PURPOSE: In planning intraoral quadrangular Le Fort II osteotomy (IQLFIIO), simulation of hard and soft tissue changes will be important at the infraorbital, Le Fort I, and incisor level. The aim of our study was to evaluate a new method for visualization and quantification. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Three different methods of quantification were compared: the point-to-point (PTP) measurement, which has been viewed as the reference standard; part comparison analysis (PCA); and a new method, the midfacial advancement line (MFAL) measurement. We performed a measurement comparison study using the Bland-Altman method to measure agreement and enrolled patients with midfacial deficiency and Class III malocclusion who had undergone IQLFIIO. The primary predictor variable was the method of measurement. The primary outcome variable was the amount of midfacial advancement. We also investigated the time required, visualization quality, and interobserver agreement. RESULTS: The sample included 12 subjects with a mean age of 21.6 years; 7 patients were male. The PTP and MFAL showed no significant observer dependence. The advancement measured with PTP and MFAL showed no significant differences. However, the advancement measured using MFAL and PCA showed a significant difference. The highest rating of visualization was found for MFAL. The time requirements were similar for all 3 methods. CONCLUSIONS: Our results have shown that the MFAL is a suitable method for visualization and quantification of soft and hard tissue changes at all 3 face levels in 1 image. It could be a valuable tool for virtual planning of midfacial advancement surgery.
Authors: Katrin Willinger; Godoberto Guevara-Rojas; Julia Cede; Kurt Schicho; Tanja Stamm; Clemens Klug Journal: Plast Reconstr Surg Glob Open Date: 2021-02-01