Predictability of maxillary repositioning during bimaxillary surgery: accuracy of a new technique

Gil, José Nazareno; Claus, Jonathas Daniel Paggi; Manfro, Rafael; Lima, Sergio Monteiro

doi:10.1016/j.ijom.2006.10.015

Cited by 55 publications

(21 citation statements)

References 11 publications

(20 reference statements)

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…In comparison of the AR with other studies, MS, MI, MA, and ME in this study showed higher values than Jacobson and Sarver 3 (43% within 1 mm of the prediction in cases with maxillary impaction and advancement of the maxilla) and Semaan and Goonewardene 29 (26% within 1 mm of prediction in cases with elongation, impaction, and advancement of the maxilla). 29 The finding that the mean values of discrepancy were less than 1 mm in all groups (Table 2) seems to be in accord with Bryan and Hunt, 32 Csaszar and Niederdellmann, 11 and Gil et al, 33 who reported that there was no significant difference between the planned and actual maxillary positions following LeFort I osteotomy during bimaxillary surgery.…”

Section: Comparison Of Overall Accuracy Rate and Surgical Achievementsupporting

confidence: 61%

Surgical Accuracy of Maxillary Repositioning According to Type of Surgical Movement in Two-Jaw Surgery

Choi

Baek

2009

The Angle Orthodontist

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Objective:To compare the surgical accuracy of the maxillary repositioning according to the maxillary surgical movement type (SMT) in two-jaw orthognathic surgery (TJOS). Materials and Methods:The samples consisted of 52 Korean young adult patients with skeletal Class III malocclusion treated with TJOS by one surgeon. Lateral cephalograms were taken 1 month before (T0) and 1 day after surgery (T1). The samples were allocated into maxillary advancement (MA), total setback (MS), impaction (MI), and elongation (ME) according to SMT. The distance from the upper incisor tip and the mesiobuccal cusp tip of the upper first molar to the horizontal and vertical reference lines at T0 and T1 were measured. Any discrepancy between the surgical treatment objective (STO) and the surgical result less than 1 mm was regarded as accurate. The accuracy rate (AR [number of the accurate sample/number of the sample] ϫ1000) and the surgical achievement ratio (SAR [amount of movement in surgical result/amount of movement in STO] ϫ100) were calculated. Analysis variance (ANOVA) and crosstab analyses were used for statistical analysis. Results: Although the MS (69.2%) and MI (69.0%) showed a lower AR than the MA (87.5%) and ME (83.3%), there was no significant difference in the distribution of accurate and inaccurate samples among the groups. The mean discrepancy between the STO and the surgical result was less than 1 mm in all groups. Although the ME (93.54%) showed a tendency of undercorrection and the MS (107.10%) and MI (105.42%) a tendency of overcorrection, there was no significant difference in SAR among the groups. Conclusions: If the surgical plan and procedure is done with caution, the MS and MI can be regarded as just as accurate a procedure as the MA and ME. (Angle Orthod. 2009;79:306-311.)

show abstract

Section: Comparison Of Overall Accuracy Rate and Surgical Achievementsupporting

confidence: 61%

Surgical Accuracy of Maxillary Repositioning According to Type of Surgical Movement in Two-Jaw Surgery

Choi

Baek

2009

The Angle Orthodontist

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Los valores de precisión que presentan todos estos trabajos son significativos, generalmente superiores a los obtenidos con los sistemas de transferencia tradicionales [5][6][7] . Nosotros consideramos que los resultados aportados en este trabajo son prometedores, teniendo en cuenta que 8 de los 10 fragmentos maxilares estudiados fueron grandes avances (10 mm o más), fragmentos más vulnerables a sufrir micromovimientos y ajustes adaptativos, especialmente a nivel dentoalveolar, también acelerados por el propio proceso quirúrgico.…”

Section: Discussionunclassified

“…No obstante, las FO pueden introducir errores difícilmente controlables durante la cirugía, y dejan en manos del equipo quirúrgico el control vertical y el posicionamiento de los cón-dilos mandibulares, elementos que pueden condicionar el correcto posicionamiento del fragmento maxilar [4][5][6][7] .…”

Section: Introductionunclassified

Guías y miniplacas personalizadas: un protocolo guiado para cirugía ortognática

Prol

Franco

Carlos

et al. 2017

Revista Española de Cirugía Oral y Maxilofacial

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…14 Extraoral reference points are accepted as more reliable than intraoral reference points for accurate vertical positioning of the maxilla. [15][16][17][18] Studies with extraoral bony reference points have shown better results than skin points. 19 However, intraoral bony reference points were preferred in this study because of the invasiveness of extraoral ones.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

The Surgical Predictability of Maxillary Advancement and Impaction in Le Fort I Osteotomy

Soydan¹,

Şar²,

Arman-Özçırpıcı

et al. 2013

Turkish Journal of Orthodontics

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Objective: The aim of this study was to evaluate and compare the amount of preoperatively planned surgical movement of the maxilla and postoperatively obtained maxillary repositioning. Materials and Method: Thirty-one patients (16 female and 15 male) were included in this study. Fifteen combined maxillary advancement and impaction, 5 isolated maxillary impaction, and 11 isolated maxillary advancement surgeries were performed by the same surgical team. The 31 patients were divided into 2 groups: group 1 (GoGnSN 388) and group 2 (GoGnSN.388). Various measurements from the horizontal and vertical reference lines were used to compare the predicted maxillary movement and the postoperatively obtained maxillary position. All variables were evaluated by Student's 2-tailed paired t tests. Results: There were statistically significant differences between the preoperatively planned and surgically obtained impaction movements of all evaluated landmarks, but no significant difference was seen between the planned and obtained advancement movement. For the differences between the planned and acquired maxillary advancement movements, 51% were within 2 mm of prediction. For the differences between the planned and the acquired maxillary anterior impaction movements, 51% were within 1 mm of the prediction. The difference was 35% for the impaction of posterior maxilla. Conclusion: The predictability of vertical movement of the maxilla via Le Fort I osteotomy was lower than that for sagittal movement. The difference between planned surgical movement and actual surgical outcome should be taken into consideration during treatment planning. (Turkish J Orthod 2013;26:1-6)

show abstract

Predictability of maxillary repositioning during bimaxillary surgery: accuracy of a new technique

Cited by 55 publications

References 11 publications

Surgical Accuracy of Maxillary Repositioning According to Type of Surgical Movement in Two-Jaw Surgery

Surgical Accuracy of Maxillary Repositioning According to Type of Surgical Movement in Two-Jaw Surgery

Guías y miniplacas personalizadas: un protocolo guiado para cirugía ortognática

The Surgical Predictability of Maxillary Advancement and Impaction in Le Fort I Osteotomy

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About