PURPOSE: A computerized, cephalometric, orthognathic surgical program (TIOPS) was applied in orthognathic surgical simulation, treatment planning, and postoperatively to assess precision and stability of bimaxillary orthognathic surgery. PATIENTS AND METHODS: Forty consecutive patients with dentofacial deformities requiring bimaxillary orthognathic surgery with maxillary superior repositioning combined with mandibular advancement or setback were included. All patients were managed with rigid internal fixation (RIF) of the maxilla and mandible and without maxillomandibular fixation (MMF). Preoperative cephalograms were analyzed and treatment plans produced by computerized surgical simulation. Planned, 5-week postoperative and 1-year postoperative maxillary and mandibular cephalometric-positions were compared. RESULTS: In the mandibular advancement group, the anterior maxilla was placed too far superiorly, with an inaccuracy of 0.4 mm. The posterior maxilla and the anterior mandible were placed in the planned positions. The lower posterior part of the mandibular ramus was placed too far anteriorly, with an inaccuracy of 2.0 mm. However, the mandibular condyles were accurately placed. In the setback group, the anterior maxilla was placed too far superiorly and posteriorly, with a vertical and sagittal inaccuracy of 1.0 mm and 0.7 mm, respectively. The posterior part of the maxilla was placed in a posterior position with an inaccuracy of 1.9 mm. The anterior mandible was placed too far anteriorly with an inaccuracy of 0.9 mm. The lower posterior part of the mandibular ramus was placed in a posterior position with an inaccuracy of 0.9 mm. However, the mandibular condyles were accurately placed. The statistical analysis of the 1-year stability data showed that the maxilla had moved 0.3 mm posteriorly in the advancement group and the lower incisors had moved 0.8 mm superiorly. No other significant positional maxillary or mandibular changes were found. In the setback group, the maxilla had moved 0.5 mm posteriorly, the anterior mandible 0.5 mm anteriorly, and the lower incisors 0.7 mm superiorly. No significant positional changes were seen in the mandibular ramus. CONCLUSION: The TIOPS computerized, cephalometric, orthognathic program is useful in orthognathic surgical simulation, planning, and prediction, and in postoperative evaluation of surgical precision and stability. The simulated treatment plan can be transferred to model surgery and finally to the orthognathic surgical procedures. The results show that this technique yields acceptable postoperative precision and stability.
PURPOSE: A computerized, cephalometric, orthognathic surgical program (TIOPS) was applied in orthognathic surgical simulation, treatment planning, and postoperatively to assess precision and stability of bimaxillary orthognathic surgery. PATIENTS AND METHODS: Forty consecutive patients with dentofacial deformities requiring bimaxillary orthognathic surgery with maxillary superior repositioning combined with mandibular advancement or setback were included. All patients were managed with rigid internal fixation (RIF) of the maxilla and mandible and without maxillomandibular fixation (MMF). Preoperative cephalograms were analyzed and treatment plans produced by computerized surgical simulation. Planned, 5-week postoperative and 1-year postoperative maxillary and mandibular cephalometric-positions were compared. RESULTS: In the mandibular advancement group, the anterior maxilla was placed too far superiorly, with an inaccuracy of 0.4 mm. The posterior maxilla and the anterior mandible were placed in the planned positions. The lower posterior part of the mandibular ramus was placed too far anteriorly, with an inaccuracy of 2.0 mm. However, the mandibular condyles were accurately placed. In the setback group, the anterior maxilla was placed too far superiorly and posteriorly, with a vertical and sagittal inaccuracy of 1.0 mm and 0.7 mm, respectively. The posterior part of the maxilla was placed in a posterior position with an inaccuracy of 1.9 mm. The anterior mandible was placed too far anteriorly with an inaccuracy of 0.9 mm. The lower posterior part of the mandibular ramus was placed in a posterior position with an inaccuracy of 0.9 mm. However, the mandibular condyles were accurately placed. The statistical analysis of the 1-year stability data showed that the maxilla had moved 0.3 mm posteriorly in the advancement group and the lower incisors had moved 0.8 mm superiorly. No other significant positional maxillary or mandibular changes were found. In the setback group, the maxilla had moved 0.5 mm posteriorly, the anterior mandible 0.5 mm anteriorly, and the lower incisors 0.7 mm superiorly. No significant positional changes were seen in the mandibular ramus. CONCLUSION: The TIOPS computerized, cephalometric, orthognathic program is useful in orthognathic surgical simulation, planning, and prediction, and in postoperative evaluation of surgical precision and stability. The simulated treatment plan can be transferred to model surgery and finally to the orthognathic surgical procedures. The results show that this technique yields acceptable postoperative precision and stability.
Authors: Sam Sheng-Pin Hsu; Jaime Gateno; R Bryan Bell; David L Hirsch; Michael R Markiewicz; John F Teichgraeber; Xiaobo Zhou; James J Xia Journal: J Oral Maxillofac Surg Date: 2012-06-12 Impact factor: 1.895