Literature DB >> 32100114

Outcomes of conventional versus virtual surgical planning of orthognathic surgery using surgery-first approach for class III asymmetry.

Yu-Fang Liao1,2,3,4, Ying-An Chen5,6,7, Yi-Chieh Chen8, Yu-Ray Chen5,6,9,7.   

Abstract

OBJECTIVES: To determine if patient outcome variables differ between conventional and virtual surgical planning of orthognathic surgery for class III asymmetry.
MATERIAL AND METHODS: This retrospective case-control study examined 95 patients with class III asymmetry who had been consecutively treated with at least a Le Fort I osteotomy and a bilateral sagittal split osteotomy with a surgery-first approach. Two groups were examined: 51 patients treated with conventional surgical planning and 44 with virtual surgical planning. After treatment, quantitative assessment was determined with measurements of midline symmetry, contour symmetry, and overall facial symmetry using standardized frontal photographs. Subject assessments were analyzed with questionnaires regarding self-perception of overall appearance, satisfaction with appearance, and quality of life.
RESULTS: Conventional and virtual surgical planning resulted in significant improvements in outcomes for all patients. However, facial midline and overall facial symmetry were significantly greater for the virtual compared with the conventional group. There were no significant differences in subjective measures of appearance, satisfaction with appearance, and quality of life for patients treated with conventional or virtual surgical planning; measures were high for both groups.
CONCLUSIONS: Conventional and virtual surgical planning of surgery-first bimaxillary orthognathic surgery resulted in quantitative and qualitative improvements in facial symmetry. Although patient satisfaction was similar for both approaches, virtual surgical planning was superior to conventional surgical planning for the improvement of midline and overall asymmetry. CLINICAL RELEVANCE: Improvements with virtual surgical planning in facial midline, facial contour, and overall facial symmetry are as good as or better than conventional surgical planning.

Entities:  

Keywords:  Class III malocclusion; Facial asymmetry; Orthognathic surgery; Outcome; Satisfaction; Virtual surgical planning

Year:  2020        PMID: 32100114     DOI: 10.1007/s00784-020-03241-4

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Clin Oral Investig        ISSN: 1432-6981            Impact factor:   3.573


  31 in total

1.  Three-dimensional computed tomography analysis of mandibular morphology in patients with facial asymmetry and mandibular prognathism.

Authors:  Kug-Ho You; Kee-Joon Lee; Sang-Hwy Lee; Hyoung-Seon Baik
Journal:  Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop       Date:  2010-11       Impact factor: 2.650

2.  Standards for digital photography in cranio-maxillo-facial surgery--part II: additional picture sets and avoiding common mistakes.

Authors:  Heidrun Schaaf; Philipp Streckbein; Giovanni Ettorre; John C Lowry; Maurice Y Mommaerts; Hans-Peter Howaldt
Journal:  J Craniomaxillofac Surg       Date:  2006-07-21       Impact factor: 2.078

Review 3.  Surgical approach to the patient with bimaxillary protrusion.

Authors:  Yong-Ming Chu; Roger Po-Hsun Chen; David E Morris; Ellen Wen-Ching Ko; Yu-Ray Chen
Journal:  Clin Plast Surg       Date:  2007-07       Impact factor: 2.017

4.  Nasal changes after surgical correction of skeletal Class III malocclusion in Koreans.

Authors:  Chooryung Chung; Yebert Lee; Kwang-Ho Park; Sun-Hyung Park; Young-Chel Park; Kyung-Ho Kim
Journal:  Angle Orthod       Date:  2008-05       Impact factor: 2.079

5.  Presurgical planning and time efficiency in orthognathic surgery: the use of computer-assisted surgical simulation.

Authors:  Matthew L Iorio; Derek Masden; Cathalene A Blake; Stephen B Baker
Journal:  Plast Reconstr Surg       Date:  2011-09       Impact factor: 4.730

6.  Comparison of actual surgical outcomes and 3-dimensional surgical simulations.

Authors:  Scott Tucker; Lucia Helena Soares Cevidanes; Martin Styner; Hyungmin Kim; Mauricio Reyes; William Proffit; Timothy Turvey
Journal:  J Oral Maxillofac Surg       Date:  2010-06-29       Impact factor: 1.895

7.  Computer-assisted orthognathic surgery for correction of facial asymmetry: results of a randomised controlled clinical trial.

Authors:  Giacomo De Riu; Silvio Mario Meloni; Alessandro Baj; Andrea Corda; Damiano Soma; Antonio Tullio
Journal:  Br J Oral Maxillofac Surg       Date:  2014-01-10       Impact factor: 1.651

8.  Enhanced Surgical Outcomes in Patients With Skeletal Class III Facial Asymmetry by 3-Dimensional Surgical Simulation.

Authors:  Ellen Wen-Ching Ko; Cheng-Hui Lin; Ying-An Chen; Yu-Ray Chen
Journal:  J Oral Maxillofac Surg       Date:  2017-09-19       Impact factor: 1.895

9.  Facial soft-tissue changes in skeletal Class III orthognathic surgery patients analyzed with 3-dimensional laser scanning.

Authors:  Hyoung-Seon Baik; Soo-Yeon Kim
Journal:  Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop       Date:  2010-08       Impact factor: 2.650

10.  Stigma, body image, and quality of life in women seeking orthognathic surgery.

Authors:  Li-Wei Lee; Sue-Huei Chen; Chung-Chih Yu; Lun-Jou Lo; Sheau-Rong Lee; Yu-Ray Chen
Journal:  Plast Reconstr Surg       Date:  2007-07       Impact factor: 4.730

View more
  2 in total

1.  Orthognathic Surgery to Improve Facial Profile: Assessment, 3-Dimensional Planning, and Technique.

Authors:  Kitae E Park; Seija Maniskas; Omar Allam; Navid Pourtaheri; Derek M Steinbacher
Journal:  Aesthet Surg J Open Forum       Date:  2020-11-19

2.  One-splint versus two-splint technique in orthognathic surgery for class III asymmetry: comparison of patient-centred outcomes.

Authors:  Jing Hao Ng; Ying-An Chen; Yuh-Jia Hsieh; Chuan-Fong Yao; Yu-Fang Liao; Yu-Ray Chen
Journal:  Clin Oral Investig       Date:  2021-05-05       Impact factor: 3.573

  2 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.