Evaluation of profile esthetic change with mandibular advancement surgery

Shelly, Andrew D.; Southard, Thomas E.; Southard, Karin A.; Casko, John S.; Jakobsen, Jane R.; Fridrich, Kirk L.; Mergen, John

doi:10.1016/s0889-5406(00)70171-5

Cited by 76 publications

(59 citation statements)

References 6 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…Authors reported 5 mm forward and downward movements of the B point, and a reduction of 3° for ANB after mandibular advancement surgery with associated mentoplasty. 15 According to their study, the higher were the initial values for the ANB, the greater was its influence on the improvement in profile esthetics of the surgery.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Cephalometric evaluation of surgical mandibular advancement

et al. 2010

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The treatment of Class II adult individuals with mandibular deficiency has been the combination of orthodontic treatment and orthognathic surgery. Therefore, a study was conducted in which cephalometric analysis was used to evaluate the influence of dentoalveolar decompensation in Class II patients submitted to orthodontic and surgical treatment for mandibular advancement, by bilateral osteotomy of the mandibular ramus. A sample of 15 leukoderma adult female patients were selected and three cephalometric radiographs of each patient, taken before the orthodontic treatment, before surgery and after at least 6 months postoperatively, were analyzed in a total of 45 roentgenograms. The tracings were made by the manual method and the points were digitalized using software. The results showed that values of SNB increased from 75.6 to 78.6°. The measures BNP and PGNP were reduced from -12.7 to -7.7 mm and -12.7 to -6.6 mm, respectively. For ANB there was a reduction of 3.23° (from 8.1° to 4.9°) . Likewise, the values of AOBO were diminished by 6.3 mm (from 7.6 to 1.3 mm), and in the values of OJ there was a reduction of 5.7 mm (from 9 to 3.3 mm). It was concluded that the pre-surgical orthodontic treatment promoted minimal and variable dental and skeletal changes in the final result. The surgical treatment caused significant skeletal changes, especially in the measurements related to the mandible (SNB, BNP, PGNP and SNPM) or indirectly to it (ANB, AOBO and OJ).

show abstract

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Cephalometric evaluation of surgical mandibular advancement

et al. 2010

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…However, panel composition and assessment of data have been inconsistent and vary from study to study. On the one hand, some results suggest that preferences of facial attractiveness by laypersons, orthodontists, and surgeons are generally in agreement [5,6]. On the other hand, laypersons might be expected to give lower improvement scores after surgery than do professionals and should be less critical in their evaluation of profiles displaying dysgnathia as well as normal reference profiles [7].…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Perceptions of Pre- to Postsurgical Profile Changes in Orthognathic Surgery Patients and Their Correlation with Photogrammetric Changes: A Panel Study

Sari-Rieger

Rustemeyer

2015

J. Maxillofac. Oral Surg.

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Purpose The objective was to compare the pre-and postsurgical profile changes after surgical correction of prognathism and maxillary hypoplasia, as perceived by panels of orthodontists, maxillofacial surgeons, laypersons and patients and to identify photogrammetric changes that might be related to preferred ratings. Materials and methods Each panel consisted of six males and six females who rated sets of pre-and postsurgical lateral photographs of 20 female and 20 male patients using a five-point scale. Patients rated their own set of photographs. Pre-to postsurgical differences of photogrammetrically assessed landmarks were recorded as a surgical change.Results No significant differences in ratings between panels and patients could be detected. Significant correlation coefficients (r) were obtained between the ratings of all panel groups and between the ratings and changes in facial convexity (r = 0.351-0.542). Correlations with changes of the mentolabial angle were found to be significant for old orthodontists, male laypersons, and male patients (r = 0.332-0.609). Ratings of female and young laypersons were correlated with the horizontal changes in the lower face (r = 0.324-0.379). Conclusion Information gathered from this study will support the cooperation of the medical staff and might assist in treatment planning.

show abstract

“…They are described as only a complement to other methods of esthetic evaluation; however, they are suitable for the comparison of change within the same profile (Barrer and Ghafari 1985). Many others (e.g., De Laat 1974;O'Neill et al 2000;Shelly et al 2000;Spyropoulos and Halazonetis 2001;Mergen et al 2004) have supported the use of silhouettes due to their simplicity and disregard of variable factors that have been shown to bias the ratings of profile esthetics (Spyropoulos and Halazonetis 2001). The following is a chronological review of studies that used silhouettes to evaluate profile attractiveness within the orthodontic literature.…”

Section: Silhouette Evaluationsmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…A retrospective silhouette study by Shelly et al (2000) investigated the impact of mandibular advancement surgery (without genioplasty) on profile esthetics. These silhouettes were constructed from lateral cephalometric radiographs of mandibular deficient Class II, division 1 subjects prior to and after treatment.…”

Section: Silhouette Evaluationsmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Most esthetic evaluations found in the literature have been previously accomplished using ranking (Lines et al 1978;Tedesco et al 1983;De Smit and Dermaut 1984), numeric rating (Prahl-Anderson et al 1979;Dongieux and Sassouni 1980;Evans and Shaw 1987;Lundström et al 1987Lundström et al , 1989Kerr and O'Donell 1990;Shelly et al 2000;Mergen et al 2004), ratio (Peerlings et al 1995;O'Neill et al 2000;Faure et al 2002;Kiekens et al 2005), or visual analogue scales (Howells and Shaw 1985;Shaw et al 1985;Bowman and Johnston 2000;Flores-Mir et al 2004). A ranking scale is a type of measuring scheme that asks observers to rank images in order of esthetic preference, commonly from most preferred to least preferred.…”

Section: Measuring Techniquesmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Esthetic Evaluation of Edgewise Orthodontic Treatment in Matched Class II, Division 1 Subjects, with and without a MARA

Fergus¹

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Evaluation of profile esthetic change with mandibular advancement surgery

Cited by 76 publications

References 6 publications

Cephalometric evaluation of surgical mandibular advancement

Cephalometric evaluation of surgical mandibular advancement

Perceptions of Pre- to Postsurgical Profile Changes in Orthognathic Surgery Patients and Their Correlation with Photogrammetric Changes: A Panel Study

Esthetic Evaluation of Edgewise Orthodontic Treatment in Matched Class II, Division 1 Subjects, with and without a MARA

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About