Accuracy of 3 Soft Tissue Prediction Methods After Double-Jaw Orthognathic Surgery in Class III Patients

Abstract

Purpose: We aimed to evaluate the accuracy and validity of conventional manual prediction method (CM) and 2-dimensional and 3-dimensional (3D) soft tissue prediction methods for Class III bimaxillary orthognathic surgery patients. Methods: Twenty skeletal Class III patients were included in this study. Soft tissue prediction was achieved with a traditional manual technique, 2-dimensional software (Dolphin Imaging, version 11.5), and 3-dimensional software (SimPlant Master, version 16.0) on preoperative lateral cephalometric radiographs and cone beam computurized tomography (CBCT) images and then compared with postoperative lateral cephalometric radiographs obtained at least 6 months after surgery (mean, 11.5 ± 6.77 months). Forty-eight measurements were done to determine the reliability of the methods. Results: All prediction methods have limited postsurgery prediction accuracy for the subnasal upper lip area. Most of the differences were not more than 3 mm for all study groups, except the 3D software, which predicted the upper lip area to be, on average, 3.08 ± 1.38 mm further back (P < 0.001). Although the conventional method predicted 20 of 48 measurements similar to the final results, the poorest predictions were found at the nasal and labiomental areas (P < 0.001). Twodimensional software predicted 23 of 48 measurements very close to the final results but made significantly different predictions for the nasolabial and labiomental angles, labrale superius point, and the chin area. Conclusions: The 3D method predicted, especially the upper lip area, to be significantly and clinically incorrect, and its soft tissue prediction was insufficient compared with the other 2 methods. The 3D software needs to be updated, especially in evaluating soft tissue A point and upper lip changes after surgery.

Accuracy of Soft Tissue Prediction in Skeletal Type III Relationship Using a Computer-Aided Three-Dimensional Surgical Simulation Planning Program

“…Differences in the human face less than 2 mm are not visible to the human eye, according to Kaipatur et al [12]. Furthermore, many researchers in the literature have stated that prediction errors of less than 3 mm are not clinically significant [21][22][23][24]. Therefore, despite the fact that all of the landmarks showed significant differences, the mean values did not exceed the 2 mm accuracy threshold except for those of the stomian inferius and pogonion in the one-jaw group, as this is generally considered to be a visually perceptible facial difference, indicating that this error was not clinically significant.…”

Accuracy of Orthognathic Surgical Planning using Three-dimensional Virtual Techniques compared with Conventional Two-dimensional Techniques: a Systematic Review

“…Reasons for excluding 10 studies after full-text assessment were: not a randomized controlled trial (n = 2) [32,33], TSP was not used in the study (n = 2) [34,35], identical patient sample were reported in one of the included studies (n = 5) [36][37][38][39][40], conference abstract (n = 1) [41].…”

Digitale Weichteilvorhersage im Kontext der kieferorthopädisch-kieferchirurgischen Behandlung

“…Hier lag die durchschnittliche Abweichung für das gesamte Gesicht i.d.R. unter 3 mm, wobei im Oberlippenbereich der größte durchschnittliche Fehler bei 3,08 ± 1,38 mm lag [45]. Allgemein wurden signifikante Unterschiede gegenüber der Weichteilsimulation für den Nasolabial-und Mentolabialwinkel sowie die Oberlippe und das Kinn berichtet [46].…”