Cephalometric evaluation of skeletal relationships after bimaxillary surgical correction of mandibular prognathism
Abstract
Background/Aim. In recent years, bimaxillary surgery has widely been accepted as an effective surgical procedure for the correction of mandibular prognathism. The aim of this study was to determine how bimaxillary surgical correction can change the skeletal dimensions and relations typical of mandibular prognathism and whether the postoperative results can be compared with biometric values of these dimensions in subjects with normal occlusion. Methods. The study included 50 subjects divided into two groups. The analyzed group consisted of 20 patients with mandibular prognathism, mean age 19.8 ± 5.3 years. The control group consisted of 30 subjects with skeletal class I and normal occlusion, mean age 21.5 ± 3.5 years. Cephalometric studies were conducted on 70 lateral cephalograms made on subjects of the analyzed group before and after surgery and in controls. All radiographs were transformed into a digital form. Using the computer program "Dr. Ceph", 30 linear and angular skeletal variables were analyzed and compared on each radiograph. The values of examined variables in the analyzed group were compared before and after surgery and with the values of the same variables in the control group. Results. Bimaxillary osteotomies changed most of the variables that characterize the mandibular prognathism. Changes in the sagittal plane were reflected in a significant increase of angles SNA (by 4° on the average), ANB (6°), and a significant reduction in angles SNB (3°), ArGoMe (8°), NGoMe (6.2°), Bjork’s sum (7°) and the angle of skeletal convexity NAPg (2°). Changes in vertical relationships were reflected in a significant reduction in overall anterior face height N-Me (by 5 mm on average), the lower anterior face height ANS-Me (4 mm), in a significant increase in the total posterior face height S-Go (2.5–3 mm), lower posterior face height PNS-Go (4 mm), in a significant reduction of the basal angle PP/MP (5°) and angle that mandibular plane closes with the anterior cranial base NS/MP (4°). Comparison of investigated variables in the analyzed group after surgery with the same values in the control group showed that they were significantly closer to biometric standards. Conclusion. Bimaxillary surgery significantly alters the skeletal relationships and facial dimensions typical of mandibular prognathism and normalizes the skeletal profile and appearance in operated patients.
References
Proffit RW, White PR, Sarver MD. Contemporary treatment of dentofacial deformity. St.Louis, Mo: Mosby Co; 2003,
Bui C, King T, Proffit W, Frazier-Bowers S. Phenotypic charac-terization of Class III patients. Angle Orthod 2006; 76(4): 564‒9.
Staudt CB, Kiliaridis S. Different skeletal types underlying Class III malocclusion in a random population. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop 2009; 136(5): 715‒21.
Vela KC. Phenotypic characterisation of class C III malocclu-sion [thesis]. Iowa, US: University of Iowa’s Institutional Re-pository; 2012.
Ingervall B, Thüer U, Vuillemin T. Stability and effect on the soft tissue profile of mandibular setback with sagittal split os-teotomy and rigid internal fixation. Int J Adult Orthodon Or-thognath Surg 1995; 10(1): 15‒25.
Aydil B, Özer N, Marşan G. Bimaxillary surgery in Class III malocclusion: soft and hard tissue changes. J Craniomaxillofac Surg 2013; 41(3): 254‒7.
Wolford LM. The sagittal split ramus osteotomy as the pre-ferred treatment for mandibular prognathism. J Oral Maxillo-fac Surg 2000; 58(3): 310‒2.
Ghali GE, Sikes JW Jr. Intraoral vertical ramus osteotomy as the preferred treatment for mandibular prognathism. J Oral Maxillofac Surg 2000; 58(3): 313‒5.
Sinobad V, Strajnić L, Sinobad T. Skeletal changes in patients with mandibular prognathism after mandibular setback and bimaxillary surgery – a comparative cephalometric study. Vojnosanit Pregl 2020; 77(4): 395‒40.
Asada K, Motoyoshi M, Tamura T, Nakajima A, Mayahara K, Shimizu N. Satisfaction with orthognathic surgery of skeletal Class III patients. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop 2015; 148(5): 827‒37.
Ogasawara T, Kitagawa Y, Ogawa T, Yamada T, Nakamura M, Sano K. Treatment of severe mandibular prognathism in com-bination with maxillary hypoplasia: case report. J Craniomaxil-lofac Surg 2002; 30(4): 226‒9.
Chew MT. Soft and hard tissue changes after bimaxillary sur-gery in Chinese Class III patients. Angle Orthod 2005; 75(6): 959‒63.
Abeltins A, Jakobsone G, Urtane I, Bigestans A. The stability of bilateral sagittal ramus osteotomy and vertical ramus osteoto-my after bimaxillary correction of class III malocclusion. J Craniomaxillofac Surg 2011; 39(8): 583‒7.
Al-Gunaid T, Yamaki M, Takagi R, Saito I. Soft and hard tissue changes after bimaxillary surgery in Japanese class III asym-metric patients. J Orthod Sci 2012; 1(3): 69‒76.
Marşan G, Cura N, Emekli U. Soft and hard tissue changes af-ter bimaxillary surgery in Turkish female Class III patients. J Craniomaxillofac Surg 2009; 37(1): 8‒17.
Jakobsone G, Stenvik A, Sandvik L, Espeland L. Three-year fol-low-up of bimaxillary surgery to correct skeletal Class III mal-occlusion: stability and risk factors for relapse. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop 2011; 139(1): 80‒9.
Trauner R, Obwegeser H. The surgical correction of mandibular prognathism and retrognathia with consideration of genioplas-ty. I. Surgical procedures to correct mandibular prognathism and reshaping of the chin. Oral Surg Oral Med Oral Pathol 1957; 10(7): 677‒89; contd.
Turvey TA, White RP. Maxillary surgery. In: Proffit WR, White RP Jr, Sarver DM, editors. Contemporary treatment of den-tofacial deformity. St. Louis, Mo: Mosby Co; 2003. Chapter 9.
Johnston C, Burden D, Kennedy D, Harradine N, Stevenson M. Class III surgical-orthodontic treatment: a cephalometric study. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop 2006; 130(3): 300‒9.
Aydemir H, Efendiyeva R, Karasu H, Toygar-Memikoğlu U. Eval-uation of long-term soft tissue changes after bimaxillary or-thognathic surgery in Class III patients. Angle Orthod 2015; 85(4): 631‒7.