Modern Surgery-First Approach Concept in Cleft-Orthognathic Surgery: A Comparative Cohort Study with 3D Quantitative Analysis of Surgical-Occlusion Setup

Overview

Journal J Clin Med

Specialty General Medicine

Date 2019 Dec 8

PMID 31810279

Citations 7

Authors

Hyung Joon Seo

Rafael Denadai

Betty Chien-Jung Pai

Lun-Jou Lo

Affiliations

Soon will be listed here.

Abstract

Despite the evident benefits of the modern surgery-first orthognathic surgery approach (reduced treatment time, efficient tooth decompensation, and early improvement in facial esthetics), the challenge of the surgical-occlusion setup acts as a hindering factor for the widespread and global adoption of this therapeutic modality, especially for the management of cleft-skeletofacial deformity. This is the first study to assess three-dimensional (3D) quantitative data of the surgical-occlusion setup in surgery-first cleft-orthognathic surgery. This comparative retrospective study was performed on 3D image datasets from consecutive patients with skeletal Class III deformity who had a unilateral cleft lip/palate (cleft cohort, = 44) or a noncleft dentofacial deformity (noncleft cohort, = 22) and underwent 3D computer-assisted single-splint two-jaw surgery by a single multidisciplinary team between 2014 and 2018. They received conventional orthodontics-first or surgery-first approaches. 3D quantitative characterization (linear, angular, and positional measurements) of the final surgical-occlusion setup was performed and adopted for comparative analyses. In the cleft cohort, the occlusion setup in the surgery-first approach had a significantly (all < 0.05) smaller number of anterior teeth contacts and larger incisor overjet compared to the conventional approach. Considering the surgery-first approach, the cleft cohort presented significantly (all < 0.05) larger (canine lateral overjet parameter) and smaller (incisor overjet, maxillary intercanine distance, maxillary intermolar distance, ratio of intercanine distance, and ratio of intermolar distance parameters) values than the noncleft cohort. This study contributes to the literature by providing 3D quantitative data of the surgical-occlusion setup in surgery-first cleft-orthognathic surgery, and delivers information that may assist multidisciplinary teams to adopt the surgery-first concept to optimize cleft care.

Citing Articles

Comparison of Occlusal Digital Analysis Using T-Scan in Orthognathic Surgery with Only Conventional Orthodontic Patients.

Manikandhan R, Manikandan S, Ponvel K, Parameswaran R, Shankar S J Maxillofac Oral Surg. 2023; 22(2):397-409.

PMID: 37122794 PMC: 10130267. DOI: 10.1007/s12663-023-01862-2.

Surgery-First Approach for Dentofacial Deformity: A Systematic Review.

Prakash O, Verma S, Jha A, Mallick S, Ekram S, Soni M Cureus. 2023; 15(2):e35085.

PMID: 36938263 PMC: 10023129. DOI: 10.7759/cureus.35085.

Current trends in orthognathic surgery.

Seo H, Choi Y Arch Craniofac Surg. 2022; 22(6):287-295.

PMID: 34974683 PMC: 8721433. DOI: 10.7181/acfs.2021.00598.

Cephalometric Analysis, Severity Malocclusion, and Orthodontic Treatment Need Using IOTN in Deaf Children.

Prameswari N, Herniyati H, Sucahyo B, Brahmanta A, Syahdinda M Eur J Dent. 2021; 16(3):599-605.

PMID: 34820826 PMC: 9507555. DOI: 10.1055/s-0041-1735936.

Patient- and 3D morphometry-based nose outcomes after skeletofacial reconstruction.

Denadai R, Chou P, Seo H, Lonic D, Lin H, Pai B Sci Rep. 2020; 10(1):4246.

PMID: 32144392 PMC: 7060327. DOI: 10.1038/s41598-020-61233-6.

References

Liao Y, Chen Y, Yao C, Chen Y, Chen Y . Long-term outcomes of bimaxillary surgery for treatment of asymmetric skeletal class III deformity using surgery-first approach. Clin Oral Investig. 2018; 23(4):1685-1693. DOI: 10.1007/s00784-018-2603-y. View

Nurminen L, Pietila T, Vinkka-Puhakka H . Motivation for and satisfaction with orthodontic-surgical treatment: a retrospective study of 28 patients. Eur J Orthod. 1999; 21(1):79-87. DOI: 10.1093/ejo/21.1.79. View

Carpentier S, van Gastel J, Schoenaers J, Carels C, Vander Poorten V, Coucke W . Evaluation of transverse maxillary expansion after a segmental posterior subapical maxillary osteotomy in cleft lip and palate patients with severe collapse of the lateral maxillary segments. Cleft Palate Craniofac J. 2014; 51(6):651-7. DOI: 10.1597/113-232. View

Pelo S, Saponaro G, Patini R, Staderini E, Giordano A, Gasparini G . Risks in surgery-first orthognathic approach: complications of segmental osteotomies of the jaws. A systematic review. Eur Rev Med Pharmacol Sci. 2017; 21(1):4-12. View

Liou E, Chen P, Wang Y, Yu C, Huang C, Chen Y . Surgery-first accelerated orthognathic surgery: postoperative rapid orthodontic tooth movement. J Oral Maxillofac Surg. 2011; 69(3):781-5. DOI: 10.1016/j.joms.2010.10.035. View

Baek S, Ahn H, Kwon Y, Choi J . Surgery-first approach in skeletal class III malocclusion treated with 2-jaw surgery: evaluation of surgical movement and postoperative orthodontic treatment. J Craniofac Surg. 2010; 21(2):332-8. DOI: 10.1097/SCS.0b013e3181cf5fd4. View

Lee Y, Kim Y, Yun P, Larson B, Lee N . Comparison of the Stability After Mandibular Setback With Minimal Orthodontics of Class III Patients With Different Facial Types. J Oral Maxillofac Surg. 2016; 74(7):1464.e1-1464.e10. DOI: 10.1016/j.joms.2016.03.007. View

Wang R, Ho C, Lin H, Lo L . Three-dimensional cephalometry for orthognathic planning: Normative data and analyses. J Formos Med Assoc. 2019; 119(1 Pt 2):191-203. DOI: 10.1016/j.jfma.2019.04.001. View

Huang C, Chen Y . Orthodontic principles and guidelines for the surgery-first approach to orthognathic surgery. Int J Oral Maxillofac Surg. 2015; 44(12):1457-62. DOI: 10.1016/j.ijom.2015.05.023. View

10.

Peiro-Guijarro M, Guijarro-Martinez R, Hernandez-Alfaro F . Surgery first in orthognathic surgery: A systematic review of the literature. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop. 2016; 149(4):448-62. DOI: 10.1016/j.ajodo.2015.09.022. View

11.

Luther F, Morris D, Hart C . Orthodontic preparation for orthognathic surgery: how long does it take and why? A retrospective study. Br J Oral Maxillofac Surg. 2003; 41(6):401-6. DOI: 10.1016/s0266-4356(03)00163-3. View

12.

Zhang Y, Hedo R, Rivera A, Rull R, Richardson S, Tu X . Post hoc power analysis: is it an informative and meaningful analysis?. Gen Psychiatr. 2019; 32(4):e100069. PMC: 6738696. DOI: 10.1136/gpsych-2019-100069. View

13.

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

14.

Yang W, Ho C, Lo L . Automatic Superimposition of Palatal Fiducial Markers for Accurate Integration of Digital Dental Model and Cone Beam Computed Tomography. J Oral Maxillofac Surg. 2015; 73(8):1616.e1-10. DOI: 10.1016/j.joms.2015.04.004. View

15.

Choi T, Kim S, Yun P, Kim Y, Lee N . Factors Related to Relapse After Mandibular Setback Surgery With Minimal Presurgical Orthodontics. J Oral Maxillofac Surg. 2019; 77(5):1072.e1-1072.e9. DOI: 10.1016/j.joms.2018.12.030. View

16.

Liao Y, Lo S . Surgical Occlusion Setup in Correction of Skeletal Class III Deformity Using Surgery-First Approach: Guidelines, Characteristics and Accuracy. Sci Rep. 2018; 8(1):11673. PMC: 6076283. DOI: 10.1038/s41598-018-30124-2. View

17.

Wu T, Chen P, Lo L, Cheng M, Ko E . The characteristics and distribution of dental anomalies in patients with cleft. Chang Gung Med J. 2011; 34(3):306-14. View

18.

Liou E, Chen P, Wang Y, Yu C, Huang C, Chen Y . Surgery-first accelerated orthognathic surgery: orthodontic guidelines and setup for model surgery. J Oral Maxillofac Surg. 2011; 69(3):771-80. DOI: 10.1016/j.joms.2010.11.011. View

19.

Broers D, van der Heijden G, Rozema F, de Jongh A . Do patients benefit from orthognathic surgery? A systematic review on the effects of elective orthognathic surgery on psychosocial functioning and patient satisfaction. Eur J Oral Sci. 2017; 125(6):411-418. DOI: 10.1111/eos.12371. View

20.

Levine M, Ensom M . Post hoc power analysis: an idea whose time has passed?. Pharmacotherapy. 2001; 21(4):405-9. DOI: 10.1592/phco.21.5.405.34503. View