Accuracy of orthognathic surgery — a retrospective service evaluation

Abstract

Background: We have recently controlled intraoperative condylar seating, with adjustable holes such plates as a sliding plate or MOJ plate. However, even when using such plates, postoperative passive condylar seating cannot be done. Objectives: The purpose of the present study was to evaluate the safety and efficacy associated with mandibular advancement by intraoral vertical ramus osteotomy (IVRO) with endoscopicallyassisted intraoral rigid or semi-rigid internal fixation. Methods: The study sample included all patients who had undergone a mandibular advancement by IVRO procedure with endoscopically-assisted intraoral plate fixation from September 2008 to May 2012. A mandibular advancement by IVRO with endoscopically assisted intraoral rigid or semi-rigid internal fixation was used for mandibular advancement. The patients were analysed prospectively, with more than two years of follow-up, and were evaluated in terms of functional results, postoperative complications, and skeletal stability. Findings: A total of 14 patients (bilateral, seven patients with class II; unilateral, seven patients with asymmetry) were included in the present study. The average degree of mandibular advancement was 5.5 ± 1.9 mm (range, 3-9 mm). Both the occlusal relationship and facial appearance in all patients were significantly improved by the surgical-orthodontic treatment, with no major harmful clinical symptoms. In addition, one-screw semi-rigid fixation could control postoperative passive condylar seating. Conclusion: This study showed that mandibular advancement by IVRO with endoscopically assisted, intraoral semi-rigid internal fixation offers a promising treatment alternative for patients with skeletal class II malocclusion or facial asymmetry.

A Procedure for Designing Custom-Made Implants for Forehead Augmentation in People Suffering from Apert Syndrome

“…The mean of the absolute values is 0.65 mm, thus meaning that the implant designed using the procedure has a thickness slightly smaller than the implant handcrafted by the surgeon, especially in the left side. Authors inferred that an average deviation of 0.65 mm could be considered as a negligible reconstruction error, consistent with the tolerance suggested by the surgeon, approximately 0.5 mm for maxillofacial surgeries [23]. The accuracy and the appearance of the designed cranial implant were confirmed by the post-treatment outcome shown in Fig.…”