Li-Chen Liu1,2,3,4, Ying-An Chen3,4,5, Ruei-Feng Chen6, Chuan-Fong Yao3,4,5, Yu-Fang Liao7,8,9,10, Yu-Ray Chen2,3,4,5. 1. Department of Craniofacial Orthodontics, Chang Gung Memorial Hospital, Taipei, Taiwan. 2. College of Medicine, Chang Gung University, Taoyuan, Taiwan. 3. Craniofacial Center, Chang Gung Memorial Hospital, Taoyuan, Taiwan. 4. Craniofacial Research Center, Chang Gung Memorial Hospital, Linkou, Taiwan. 5. Department of Plastic and Reconstructive Surgery, Chang Gung Memorial Hospital, Linkou, Taiwan. 6. Vendome Aesthetics Medical Center, Taipei, Taiwan. 7. College of Medicine, Chang Gung University, Taoyuan, Taiwan. yufang@cgmh.org.tw. 8. Craniofacial Center, Chang Gung Memorial Hospital, Taoyuan, Taiwan. yufang@cgmh.org.tw. 9. Craniofacial Research Center, Chang Gung Memorial Hospital, Linkou, Taiwan. yufang@cgmh.org.tw. 10. Department of Craniofacial Orthodontics, Chang Gung Memorial Hospital, Guishan District, 123 Dinghu Road, Taoyuan, 333, Taiwan. yufang@cgmh.org.tw.
Abstract
OBJECTIVES: Various methods have been used to classify class III asymmetry. There is little information on the use of an asymmetry index to examine soft tissue changes and outcomes for patients with class III asymmetry. This study aimed to (1) evaluate soft tissue changes and outcomes for three types of mandibular asymmetry and (2) determine if measures are associated with type of asymmetry. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Adults who consecutively underwent bimaxillary surgery using surgery-first approach for correction of class III asymmetry were divided into three groups based on type of mandibular asymmetry. This previously reported classification system is simple and mutually independent, categorizing mandibular asymmetry according to the amount and direction of ramus asymmetry relative to menton deviation: patients with a larger transverse ramus distance on the menton deviation side were divided into group 1 and group 2; group 1 (n = 45) exhibited a menton deviation larger than ramus discrepancy; group 2 (n = 11) exhibited a menton deviation less than ramus discrepancy; group 3 (n = 22) had larger transverse ramus distance contralateral to the side of the menton deviation. Soft tissue facial asymmetry indices, calculated from cone beam computed tomography images, assessed midline and contour asymmetry presurgery, changes postsurgery, and outcomes. RESULTS: Compared with groups 1 and 2, the presurgery index for contour and midline asymmetry was smallest for group 3. All the three groups had significant improvement in midline asymmetry postsurgery, and outcome measures were good; there were no differences between groups. However, contour asymmetry only improved significantly for groups 1 and 2. The outcome for contour asymmetry was fair for groups 1 and 3 and poor for group 2. CONCLUSIONS: Bimaxillary surgery significantly improved facial midline asymmetry. The type of mandibular asymmetry was associated with postsurgical changes and outcomes for contour asymmetry. CLINICAL RELEVANCE: Understanding the types of mandibular asymmetry could help clinicians to develop treatment plans and predict treatment changes and outcomes.
OBJECTIVES: Various methods have been used to classify class III asymmetry. There is little information on the use of an asymmetry index to examine soft tissue changes and outcomes for patients with class III asymmetry. This study aimed to (1) evaluate soft tissue changes and outcomes for three types of mandibular asymmetry and (2) determine if measures are associated with type of asymmetry. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Adults who consecutively underwent bimaxillary surgery using surgery-first approach for correction of class III asymmetry were divided into three groups based on type of mandibular asymmetry. This previously reported classification system is simple and mutually independent, categorizing mandibular asymmetry according to the amount and direction of ramus asymmetry relative to menton deviation: patients with a larger transverse ramus distance on the menton deviation side were divided into group 1 and group 2; group 1 (n = 45) exhibited a menton deviation larger than ramus discrepancy; group 2 (n = 11) exhibited a menton deviation less than ramus discrepancy; group 3 (n = 22) had larger transverse ramus distance contralateral to the side of the menton deviation. Soft tissue facial asymmetry indices, calculated from cone beam computed tomography images, assessed midline and contour asymmetry presurgery, changes postsurgery, and outcomes. RESULTS: Compared with groups 1 and 2, the presurgery index for contour and midline asymmetry was smallest for group 3. All the three groups had significant improvement in midline asymmetry postsurgery, and outcome measures were good; there were no differences between groups. However, contour asymmetry only improved significantly for groups 1 and 2. The outcome for contour asymmetry was fair for groups 1 and 3 and poor for group 2. CONCLUSIONS: Bimaxillary surgery significantly improved facial midline asymmetry. The type of mandibular asymmetry was associated with postsurgical changes and outcomes for contour asymmetry. CLINICAL RELEVANCE: Understanding the types of mandibular asymmetry could help clinicians to develop treatment plans and predict treatment changes and outcomes.