Segmental Maxillary Osteotomies in Conjunction With Bimaxillary Orthognathic Surgery: Indications – Safety – Outcome

Posnick, Jeffrey C.; Adachie, Anayo; Choi, Elbert

doi:10.1016/j.joms.2016.01.051

Cited by 47 publications

(36 citation statements)

References 47 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…In another retrospective study by Ho et al, loss of vitality in teeth adjacent to the interdental osteotomy was reported to be 0.7% at the tooth level, and one tooth adjacent to the vertical osteotomy line was lost 16 . A study by Posnick et al reported no surgical injuries to the teeth of 90 patients who underwent three-segment Le Fort I osteotomy 13 . None of these three studies reported the preoperative interdental distance or bone dehiscence.…”

Section: Site Numbermentioning

confidence: 96%

“…According to the literature, modifying the procedure with interdental osteotomies may have several advantages [3][4][5][6][7][8] . Complications after segmentation are described as root injuries, tooth loss, periodontal injuries [9][10][11][12][13] , changes in alveolar crest height 14,15 , oronasal fistula 16 , and, in very rare cases, partial jaw necrosis 17,18 .…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Cone beam computed tomography evaluation of tooth injury after segmental Le Fort I osteotomy

Hartlev

Pedersen

Nørholt

2019

International Journal of Oral and Maxillofacial Surgery

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Section: Site Numbermentioning

confidence: 96%

mentioning

confidence: 99%

Cone beam computed tomography evaluation of tooth injury after segmental Le Fort I osteotomy

Hartlev

Pedersen

Nørholt

2019

International Journal of Oral and Maxillofacial Surgery

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

“…However, tooth movement for camouflage treatment may result in root resorption, damage the periodontal tissues, or cause dentoalveolar relapse in the future; therefore, fundamental changes in the alveolar and basal bone positions in patients with severe skeletal malocclusion definitively require orthognathic surgery. 1 2 3 4 …”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…In particular, many patients with an open bite or Class III malocclusion exhibit relatively decreased transverse widths due to maxillary hypoplasia, which is closely associated with the development of the dentition. 4 5 …”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Evaluation of the stability of maxillary expansion using cone-beam computed tomography after segmental Le Fort I osteotomy in adult patients with skeletal Class III malocclusion

Kim¹,

Cha

2018

Korean J Orthod

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

ObjectiveThe aim of this study is to quantitatively evaluate the stability of the skeletal and dental widths using cone-beam computed tomography (CBCT) after segmental Le Fort I osteotomy in adult patients with skeletal Class III malocclusion requiring maxillary expansion.MethodsIn total, 25 and 36 patients with skeletal Class III malocclusion underwent Le Fort I osteotomy (control group) and segmental Le Fort I osteotomy (experimental group), respectively. Coronal CBCT images were used to measure the dental and skeletal widths before (T1) and after (T2) surgery and at the end of treatment (T3). The correlation between the extent of surgery and the amount of relapse in the experimental group was also determined.ResultsIn the control group, the dental width exhibited a significant decrease of 0.70 ± 1.28 mm between T3 and T2. In the experimental group, dental and skeletal expansion of 1.83 ± 1.66 and 2.55 ± 1.94 mm, respectively, was observed between T2 and T1. The mean changes in the dental and skeletal widths between T3 and T2 were −1.41 ± 1.98 and −0.67 ± 0.72 mm, respectively. There was a weak correlation between the amount of skeletal expansion during segmental Le Fort I osteotomy and the amount of postoperative skeletal relapse in the experimental group.ConclusionsMaxillary expansion via segmental Le Fort I osteotomy showed good stability, with a skeletal relapse rate of 26.3% over approximately 12 months. Our results suggest that a greater amount of expansion requires greater efforts for the prevention of relapse.

show abstract

“…Particularly in open bites, some surgeons consider the presence of a 2-step maxillary occlusal plane as a chief-factor to choose the segmental approach. Multi-segmental osteotomies requires more surgeon expertise due to the higher risks of damaging dental structure and necrosis at the osteotomy surrounded areas (KAHNBERG; VANNAS-LOFQVIST; ZELLIN, 2005;POSNICK;ADACHIE;CHOI, 2016) Regarding anteroposterior discrepancy, some studies point out that open bite Class II patients treated surgical-orthodontic ly present a higher overbite relapse rate in the long-term when compared to Class III open bite patients (SWINNEN et al, 2001;MAIA et al, 2010). However, some study design issues, mainly related to sample size limitations and follow-up time, have to lead us to weak evidence on this topic and so motivating these investigations.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Long-term stability of surgical-orthodontic open bite treatment: Le Fort I versus 4-piece segmental Le Fort I osteotomy

Silva¹

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Long-term stability of surgical-orthodontic open bite treatment: Le Fort I versus 4-piece segmental Le Fort I osteotomy Introduction: This vertical malocclusion has the potential of causing functional and esthetic impairment, impacting patients´ quality of life negatively. The long-term stability of anterior open bite surgical-orthodontic treatment is an important and controversial issue. A variety of factors such as surgery type, surgery fixation, and the anteroposterior discrepancy is related to and can influence long-term overbite stability. The controversy of stability arises in the inherent difficulty of collecting a homogeneous sample, with considerable sample size and adequate long-term followup, leading the current literature to an inconclusive status. Therefore this thesis aimed to test 2 null hypotheses: 1-There is no difference in the long-term stability of the surgical-orthodontic correction of anterior open bite when comparing Le Fort I to 4-piece segmental Le Fort I osteotomies. 2-To test the null hypothesis that there is no difference in the long-term stability of the surgical-orthodontic correction of anterior open bite when comparing Class II to Class III patients. Materials and Methods: The sample of the first investigation comprised the lateral cephs of 29 open bite subjects treated with 1-piece Lefort I osteotomy compared to the lateral cephs of 24 open bite subjects treated with 4-piece Lefort I osteotomy; in both groups Class I, II and III subjects were included. The groups were matched regarding age and were compared with t-tests. To test the second null hypothesis, lateral cephs of 21 Class II open bite subjects were compared to lateral cephs of 25 Class III open bite subjects. Overbite changes were compared at 3-time points: T1 (pretreatment), T2 (posttreatment) and T3 (follow-up) by using t-test. Overbite clinical stability percentage at T3 was assessed with the chi-square test. Results: In 1-piece Le Fort I Group 65.52% of patients presented with clinically significant overbite stability, while in 4-piece Group 83.33% remained stable in the long-term, however it was not statistically significant. In Class II Group 57.14% of patients presented with clinically significant overbite stability, while in Class III Group 88% remained clinically stable, and it was statistically significant. Conclusions: The first null hypothesis regarding maxillary segmentation was accepted because there was no significant intergroup difference regarding the percentage of clinically stable patients. The type of fixation seems to influence the long-term stability of open bite surgical-orthodontic correction more than maxillary segmentation. The second null hypothesis was rejected because clinical stability of Class II malocclusion open bite surgical-orthodontic treatment was significantly smaller than in Class III malocclusions.

show abstract

Segmental Maxillary Osteotomies in Conjunction With Bimaxillary Orthognathic Surgery: Indications – Safety – Outcome

Cited by 47 publications

References 47 publications

Cone beam computed tomography evaluation of tooth injury after segmental Le Fort I osteotomy

Cone beam computed tomography evaluation of tooth injury after segmental Le Fort I osteotomy

Evaluation of the stability of maxillary expansion using cone-beam computed tomography after segmental Le Fort I osteotomy in adult patients with skeletal Class III malocclusion

Long-term stability of surgical-orthodontic open bite treatment: Le Fort I versus 4-piece segmental Le Fort I osteotomy

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About