The ratio of soft and hard tissue changes after bilateral sagittal split ramus osteotomy (BSSRO) setback in skeletal class III deformity
Article Sidebar
Main Article Content
Abstract
The patients with skeletal class III deformity who underwent bilateral sagittal split ramus osteotomy (BSSRO) setback procedure have the variability changes of the hard tissue and soft tissue. Knowing the change ratio can improve the prediction outcomes after surgery. The purpose of the study was to compare the change ratio of soft to hard tissue and to evaluate and determine the possible factors, e.g., gender, age, mandibular setback distance, lip and chin thickness following BSSRO. This was a retrospective analytical study, evaluating the ratio of soft tissue to hard tissue changes at upper lip, lower lip and chin from lateral cephalometric radiographs. Cephalometric analyses of all samples were performed and classified into 3 categories including preoperative (T0)
postoperative 6 months (T1) and postoperative 12 months (T2). Thirty-five subjects with completed data for analysis were included. The average amount of mandibular setback distance was 5.80 mm, soft tissue thickness of lip and chin were 14.5 mm and 12.3 mm, respectively. The ratios of soft tissue to hard tissue changes after 12 months BSSRO setback were as follows; at upper lip (Sn : A = 0.55, Ls : U1 = 0.73), lower lip (Li : L1 = 0.94, Mlf : B = 0.98), chin (Pg’ : Pg = 0.94, Me’ : Me = 1.01).Comparison of mean difference of the ratio soft to hard tissue changes between 6 and 12 months after BSSRO setback, only Me’: Me was significantly different (p = 0.005). For the analysis of correlation co-efficients between gender, age, amount of mandibular setback and lip and chin thickness relation to ratio of soft to hard tissue changes after 12 months BSSRO setback, a significant correlation was found between lower lip thickness and the ratio of soft to hard tissue changes at Li : L1 (p = 0.02)
Article Details
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 4.0 International License.
The opinions and content expressed in the articles are solely those of the individual authors and do not necessarily reflect the views of the journal or the authors’ affiliated institutions. Authors are fully responsible for the accuracy and correctness of their work.
Any reuse, reproduction, or redistribution of the articles, content, data, or images in other forms requires prior written permission from the Thai Journal of Oral and Maxillofacial Surgery
References
Angle EH. Treatment of malocclusion of the teeth. Angle’s system. 7th ed. Philadelphia: SS White Dental Manufacturing; 1907. p. 35-120.
Nurminen L, Pietilä T, Vinkka-Puhakka H. Motivation for and satisfaction with orthodontic-surgical treatment: a retrospective study of 28 patients. Eur J Orthod. 1999;21:79-87.
Wolford LM, Hilliard FW, Dugan DJ. Surgical treatment objective. A systematic approach to the prediction tracing.St Louis, MO: CV Mosby; 1985. p. 54-74.
Lines PA, Steinhauser EW. Soft tissue changes in relationship to movement of hard structures in orthognathic surgery: a pre-liminary report. J Oral Surg. 1974;32-3.
Hershey HG, Smith LH. Soft tissue profile change associated with surgical correction of the prognathic mandible. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop. 1974;65:483-502.
Suckiel JM, Kohn MW. Soft tissue changes related to the surgical management of mandibular prognathism. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop. 1978;73:676-80.
Willmot DR. Soft tissue profile changes following of class III malocclusions by mandibular surgery. Br J Orthod.1981;8:175-81.
Gjørup H, Athanasiou AE. Soft tissue and dentoskeletal profile changes associated with mandibular setback osteotomy. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop. 1991;100:312-23.
Schatz JP, Tsimas P. Cephalometric evaluation of surgical orthodontic treatment of skeletal class III malocclusion.Int J Adult Orthodont Orthognath Surg. 1995;10:173-80.
Gaggl A, Schultes G, Kärcher H. Changes in soft tissue profile after sagittal split ramus osteotomy and retropositioning of the mandible. J Oral Maxillofac Surg. 1999;57:542-6.
Enacar A, Taner T, Toroglu S. Analysis of soft tissue profile changes associated with mandibular setback and double-jaw surgeries. Int Adult Orthod Orthognath Surg. 1999;14:27-35.
Mobarak KA, Krogstad O, Espeland L, Lyberg T. Factors influencing the predictability of soft tissue profile changes following mandibular setback surgery. Angle Orthod.2001;71:216-27.
Iizuka T, Eggensperger N, Wilke S, Seto I, Thüer U. An alternative soft tissue analysis following mandibular setback by sagittal split ramus osteotomy. Oral Surg Oral Med Oral Pathol Oral Radiol Endod. 2005;100:e1-8.
Eggensperger N, Smolka K, Luder J, Iizuka T. Short-and long-term skeletal relapse after mandibular advancement surgery. Int J Oral Maxillofac Surg. 2006,35:36-45.
Joss CU, Thüer UW. Stability of hard tissue profile after mandibular setback in sagittal split osteotomies: a longitudinal and long-term follow-up study. Eur J Orthod. 2008;30:352-8.
Lew KKK, Loh FC, Yeo JF, Loh SA. Evaluation of soft tissue profile following intraoral ramus osteotomy in Chinese adults with mandibular prognathism. Int J Adult Orthod Orthognath Surg. 1990:5:189-97.
Hu J, Wang D, Luo S, Chen Y. Differences in soft tissue profile changes following mandibular setback in Chinese men and women. J Oral Maxillofac Surg. 1999;57:1182-6.
Chou JIC, Fong HJ, Kuang SH, Gi LY, Hwang FY, Lai YC, et al.A retrospective analysis of the stability and relapse of soft and hard tissue change after bilateral sagittal split osteotomy for mandibular setback of 64 Taiwanese patients. J Oral Maxillofac Surg. 2005;63:355-61.
Ingervall B, Thüer U, Vuillemin T. Stability and effect on the soft tissue profile of mandibular setback with sagittal split osteotomy and rigid internal fixation. Int J Adult Orthodon Orthognath Surg. 1995;10:15-25.
Marşan G, Oztaş E, Kuvat SV, Cura N, Emekli U. Changes in soft tissue profile after mandibular setback surgery in class III subjects. Int J Oral Maxillofac Surg. 2009;38:236-40.
Fanibunda KB. Changes in the facial profile following correction for mandibular prognathism. Br J Oral Maxillofac Surg. 1989:27:277-86.
Chew MT. Soft and hard tissue changes after bimaxillary surgery in Chinese class III patients. Angle Orthod. 2005:75:959-63.
Gjørup H, Athanasiou AE. Soft tissue and dentoskeletal profile changes associated with mandibular setback osteotomy. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop. 1991;100:312-23.
Joss CU, Joss-Vassalli IM, Berg SJ, Kuijpers-Jagtman AM.Soft tissue profile changes after bilateral sagittal split osteotomy for mandibular setback: a systematic review.J Oral Maxillofac Surg. 2010;68:2792-801.
Van Der Vlis M, Dentino KM, Vervloet B, Padwa BL. Postoperative swelling after orthognathic surgery: a prospective volumetric analysis. J Oral Maxillofac Surg. 2014;72:2241-7.
Dolce C, Hatch JP, Van Sickels JE, Rugh JD. Five-year outcome and predictability of soft tissue profiles when wire or rigid fixation is used in mandibular advancement surgery.Am J Orthod Dentofac Orthop. 2003;124:249-56.
Naoumova J, Söderfeldt B, Lindman R. Soft tissue profile changes after vertical ramus osteotomy. Eur J Orthod.2008;30:359-65.
Chunmaneechote P, Friede H. Mandibular setback osteotomy: facial soft tissue behaviour and possibility to improve the accuracy of the soft tissue profile prediction
with the use of a computerized cephalometric program: Quick Ceph Image Pro: v.2.5. Clin Orth Res. 1999;2:85-98.
Lew KK, Loh F, Yeo JF. The reliability of computerized cephalometric soft tissue prediction following bimaxillary anterior subapical osteotomy. Int J Adult Orthod Orthognath Surg. 1990:7:97-101.