The Outcome of Skeletofacial Reconstruction with Mandibular Rotation for Management of Asymmetric Skeletal Class III Deformity: A Three-dimensional Computer-assisted Investigation

Overview

Journal Sci Rep

Specialty Science

Date 2019 Sep 19

PMID 31527720

Citations 9

Authors

Ting-Yu Wu

Rafael Denadai

Hsiu-Hsia Lin

Cheng-Ting Ho

Lun-Jou Lo

Affiliations

Soon will be listed here.

Abstract

The mandibular proximal ramus segments should be moved and rotated during orthognathic surgery-based skeletofacial reconstruction for the correction of challenging patients with facial asymmetry and malocclusion, but quantitative data regarding this rotation were not sufficient to date. This 3D computer-assisted study measured the proximal ramus segment rotation after 3D simulation-guided two-jaw surgery in patients with facial asymmetric deformity and class III malocclusion (n = 31). Using 3D mandible models and a reliable proximal ramus segment-related plane, angular changes in pitch, roll and yaw directions were measured before and one month after surgery. Significant rotational changes (p < 0.01) were observed in the left and right sides and overall proximal ramus segments after surgery, with absolute differences of 4.1 ± 3.0 (range -7.8 to 6.9), 2.8 ± 2.3 (-8.8 to 5.0), and 2.7 ± 2.4 (-6.6 to 9.9) degrees in pitch, roll, and yaw rotations, respectively. Numbness and mouth opening limiting occurred within the first 6 months after surgery but the patients had an unremarkable long-term postoperative course, with no revisionary surgery required. This study contributes to the multidisciplinary-related literature by revealing that proximal ramus segment rotation and rigid fixation with no postoperative intermaxillary immobilization was practicable in skeletofacial surgery for the successful treatment of asymmetric deformity and class III malocclusion.

Citing Articles

Three-dimensional evaluation of maxillofacial symmetry improvement following orthognathic surgery in patients with asymmetrical jaw deformities.

Zheng Z, Saito D, Hasebe D, Funayama A, Nihara J, Kobayashi T Oral Maxillofac Surg. 2024; 29(1):8.

PMID: 39505741 DOI: 10.1007/s10006-024-01297-0.

Orthognathic surgery with iliac bone grafting for an interpositional gap in a patient with type III hemifacial microsomia: A case report.

Sugiyama M, Kobayashi S, Yasumura K, Yamamoto Y, Uematsu S, Yamanishi T JPRAS Open. 2023; 37:55-62.

PMID: 37404691 PMC: 10315775. DOI: 10.1016/j.jpra.2023.06.001.

Is There Any Differences in Dento-Skeletal Stability between One Vs. Three-Screw Fixation of Mandible Following Bilateral Sagittal Split Osteotomy (BSSO)?.

Eshghpour M, Samieirad S, MohammadZadeh Mahrokh F, EbrahimZadeh N, Mozaffar S, Hashemzadeh H World J Plast Surg. 2022; 11(2):46-56.

PMID: 36117899 PMC: 9446116. DOI: 10.52547/wjps.11.2.46.

Balancing the dental occlusion and facial aesthetic features in cleft orthognathic surgery: Patient-centered concept for computer-aided planning.

Denadai R, Pai B, Lo L Biomed J. 2020; 43(2):143-145.

PMID: 32381464 PMC: 7283565. DOI: 10.1016/j.bj.2019.12.008.

Outcome of facial contour asymmetry after conventional two-dimensional versus computer-assisted three-dimensional planning in cleft orthognathic surgery.

Hsu P, Denadai R, Pai B, Lin H, Lo L Sci Rep. 2020; 10(1):2346.

PMID: 32047228 PMC: 7012815. DOI: 10.1038/s41598-020-58682-4.

References

Lonic D, Chien-Jung Pai B, Yamaguchi K, Chortrakarnkij P, Lin H, Lo L . Computer-Assisted Orthognathic Surgery for Patients with Cleft Lip/Palate: From Traditional Planning to Three-Dimensional Surgical Simulation. PLoS One. 2016; 11(3):e0152014. PMC: 4803320. DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0152014. View

Lonic D, Sundoro A, Lin H, Lin P, Lo L . Selection of a horizontal reference plane in 3D evaluation: Identifying facial asymmetry and occlusal cant in orthognathic surgery planning. Sci Rep. 2017; 7(1):2157. PMC: 5438408. DOI: 10.1038/s41598-017-02250-w. View

Choi B, Lee B, Kwon Y, Lee J, Yun S, Ryu K . Correlation between intraoperative proximal segment rotation and post-sagittal split ramus osteotomy relapse: a three-dimensional cone beam computed tomography study. Int J Oral Maxillofac Surg. 2017; 47(5):613-621. DOI: 10.1016/j.ijom.2017.10.014. View

Yang H, Hwang S . Contributing factors to intraoperative clockwise rotation of the proximal segment as a relapse factor after mandibular setback with sagittal split ramus osteotomy. J Craniomaxillofac Surg. 2013; 42(4):e57-63. DOI: 10.1016/j.jcms.2013.05.034. View

Kim S, Lee K, Yu H, Jung Y, Baik H . Three-dimensional effect of pitch, roll, and yaw rotations on maxillomandibular complex movement. J Craniomaxillofac Surg. 2015; 43(2):264-73. DOI: 10.1016/j.jcms.2014.11.022. View

Kim J, Son W, Kim S, Kim Y . Proximal Segment Changes After Bilateral Sagittal Split Ramus Osteotomy in Facial Asymmetry Patients. J Oral Maxillofac Surg. 2015; 73(8):1592-605. DOI: 10.1016/j.joms.2015.02.021. View

Kim Y, Cho B, Jung Y, Son W, Park S . Cone-beam computerized tomography evaluation of condylar changes and stability following two-jaw surgery: Le Fort I osteotomy and mandibular setback surgery with rigid fixation. Oral Surg Oral Med Oral Pathol Oral Radiol Endod. 2010; 111(6):681-7. DOI: 10.1016/j.tripleo.2010.08.001. View

Alder M, Deahl S, Matteson S, Van Sickels J, Tiner B, Rugh J . Short-term changes of condylar position after sagittal split osteotomy for mandibular advancement. Oral Surg Oral Med Oral Pathol Oral Radiol Endod. 1999; 87(2):159-65. DOI: 10.1016/s1079-2104(99)70266-0. View

Wu R, Wilson A, Gary C, Steinbacher D . Complete Reoperation in Orthognathic Surgery. Plast Reconstr Surg. 2019; 143(5):1053e-1059e. DOI: 10.1097/PRS.0000000000005532. View

10.

Haraguchi S, Takada K, Yasuda Y . Facial asymmetry in subjects with skeletal Class III deformity. Angle Orthod. 2002; 72(1):28-35. DOI: 10.1043/0003-3219(2002)072<0028:FAISWS>2.0.CO;2. View

11.

Yamaguchi K, Lonic D, Ko E, Lo L . An integrated surgical protocol for adult patients with hemifacial microsomia: Methods and outcome. PLoS One. 2017; 12(8):e0177223. PMC: 5544248. DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0177223. View

12.

Huh J, Kim S, Lee Y, Park J, Jung H, Jung Y . Three-dimensional changes of proximal segments in facial asymmetry patients after bilateral vertical ramus osteotomy. Int J Oral Maxillofac Surg. 2018; 49(8):1036-1041. DOI: 10.1016/j.ijom.2018.04.024. View

13.

Chortrakarnkij P, Lonic D, Lin H, Lo L . Establishment of a Reliable Horizontal Reference Plane for 3-Dimensional Facial Soft Tissue Evaluation Before and After Orthognathic Surgery. Ann Plast Surg. 2017; 78(3 Suppl 2):S139-S147. DOI: 10.1097/SAP.0000000000001020. View

14.

Mucedero M, Coviello A, Baccetti T, Franchi L, Cozza P . Stability factors after double-jaw surgery in Class III malocclusion. A systematic review. Angle Orthod. 2008; 78(6):1141-52. DOI: 10.2319/101807-498.1. View

15.

HARRIS M, Van Sickels J, Alder M . Factors influencing condylar position after the bilateral sagittal split osteotomy fixed with bicortical screws. J Oral Maxillofac Surg. 1999; 57(6):650-4; discussion 654-5. DOI: 10.1016/s0278-2391(99)90422-6. View

16.

Jung H, Kim S, Park H, Jung Y . Orthognathic surgery and temporomandibular joint symptoms. Maxillofac Plast Reconstr Surg. 2015; 37(1):14. PMC: 4446569. DOI: 10.1186/s40902-015-0014-4. View

17.

Iorio M, Masden D, Blake C, Baker S . Presurgical planning and time efficiency in orthognathic surgery: the use of computer-assisted surgical simulation. Plast Reconstr Surg. 2011; 128(3):179e-181e. DOI: 10.1097/PRS.0b013e3182221447. View

18.

Kim Y . Complications associated with orthognathic surgery. J Korean Assoc Oral Maxillofac Surg. 2017; 43(1):3-15. PMC: 5342970. DOI: 10.5125/jkaoms.2017.43.1.3. View

19.

Cheong Y, Lo L . Facial asymmetry: etiology, evaluation, and management. Chang Gung Med J. 2011; 34(4):341-51. View

20.

Udomlarptham N, Lin C, Wang Y, Ko E . Does two-dimensional vs. three-dimensional surgical simulation produce better surgical outcomes among patients with class III facial asymmetry?. Int J Oral Maxillofac Surg. 2018; 47(8):1022-1031. DOI: 10.1016/j.ijom.2018.02.014. View