Journal of Korean Dental Science

Korean Academy of Dental Science (대한치의학회)
권호 표지
DOI QR코드

DOI QR Code

Chin Profile Changes in Skeletal Class III Following Bimaxillary Surgery with or without Advancement Genioplasty

  • Kim, Yoon A (Department of Orthodontics, Yonsei University College of Dentistry) ;
  • Jung, Hwi-Dong (Department of Oral and Maxillofacial Surgery, Oral Science Research Center, Yonsei University College of Dentistry) ;
  • Cha, Jung-Yul (Department of Orthodontics, Institute of Craniofacial Deformity, Yonsei University College of Dentistry) ;
  • Choi, Sung-Hwan (Department of Orthodontics, Institute of Craniofacial Deformity, BK21 PLUS Project, Yonsei University College of Dentistry)
  • Received : 2020.04.18
  • Accepted : 2020.06.12
  • Published : 2020.06.30
Download PDF
⟨ Previous Next ⟩

Abstract

Purpose: This study sought to identify differences in hard and soft tissue chin profile changes in skeletal Class III patients after bimaxillary surgery, with or without advancement genioplasty. Materials and Methods: The retrospective study was conducted based on cephalometric analysis of skeletal and soft tissue variables. Lateral cephalograms taken at 3 different time points were utilized: pre-operation (T0), immediately post-operation (T1), and at least 6 months (11.0±2.6 months) post-operation (T2). The 2 groups were matched for sample size (n=20 each). Data were analyzed using independent t-tests with Bonferroni correction. Result: Group N (bimaxillary surgery alone) and Group G (bimaxillary surgery with an advancement genioplasty by horizontal sliding osteotomy) did not differ significantly in terms of demographic characteristics. The soft tissue chin thickness of Group G increased more after surgery, followed by a greater decrease during the postoperative period, and was eventually not significantly different from Group N at T2. On the other hand, the mentolabial sulcus depth of Group G (5.5±1.3 mm) was significantly greater than that of Group N (4.4±0.9 mm) (P=0.006) at T2. Conclusion: Although Group G showed a statistically significantly greater decrease in soft tissue chin thickness during the postoperative period, there were no significant intergroup differences in the chin profile for at least 6 months after the surgery, except for the mentolabial sulcus depth, which was greater in Group G than in Group N.

Keywords

References

  1. Ward JL, Garri JI, Wolfe SA. The osseous genioplasty. Clin Plast Surg. 2007; 34: 485-500. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cps.2007.05.009
  2. Hoenig JF. Sliding osteotomy genioplasty for facial aesthetic balance: 10 years of experience. Aesthetic Plast Surg. 2007; 31: 384-91. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00266-006-0177-6
  3. Naini FB, Cobourne MT, Garagiola U, McDonald F, Wertheim D. Mentolabial angle and aesthetics: a quantitative investigation of idealized and normative values. Maxillofac Plast Reconstr Surg. 2017; 39: 4. https://doi.org/10.1186/s40902-017-0102-8
  4. Trauner R, Obwegeser H. The surgical correction of mandibular prognathism and retrognathia with consideration of genioplasty. I. Surgical procedures to correct mandibular prognathism and reshaping of the chin. Oral Surg Oral Med Oral Pathol. 1957; 10: 677-89; contd. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0030-4220(57)80063-2
  5. Polido WD, Bell WH. Long-term osseous and soft tissue changes after large chin advancements. J Craniomaxillofac Surg. 1993; 21: 54-9. https://doi.org/10.1016/S1010-5182(05)80148-9
  6. Erbe C, Mulie RM, Ruf S. Advancement genioplasty in Class I patients: predictability and stability of facial profile changes. Int J Oral Maxillofac Surg. 2011; 40: 1258-62. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijom.2011.04.014
  7. Ewing M, Ross RB. Soft tissue response to mandibular advancement and genioplasty. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop. 1992; 101: 550-5. https://doi.org/10.1016/0889-5406(92)70130-3
  8. Veltkamp T, Buschang PH, English JD, Bates J, Schow SR. Predicting lower lip and chin response to mandibular advancement and genioplasty. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop. 2002; 122: 627-34. https://doi.org/10.1067/mod.2002.128864
  9. van der Linden C, van der Linden WJ, Reyneke JP. Skeletal stability following mandibular advancement with and without advancement genioplasty. Int J Oral Maxillofac Surg. 2015; 44: 621-6. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijom.2014.11.002
  10. Lee GT, Jung HD, Kim SY, Park HS, Jung YS. The stability following advancement genioplasty with biodegradable screw fixation. Br J Oral Maxillofac Surg. 2014; 52: 363-8. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.bjoms.2013.12.009
  11. Elhaddaoui R, Bahoum A, Azaroual MF, Garcia C, Zaoui F, Halimi A, Benyahia H, Bahije L. A predictive model of advancement genioplasty in Class III bimaxillary surgical cases. Int Orthod. 2018; 16: 530-44.
  12. Park JH, Jung HD, Cha JY, Jung YS. Hard and soft tissue changes and long-term stability after vertical height reduction genioplasty using biodegradable fixation. Int J Oral Maxillofac Surg. 2019; 48: 1051-6. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijom.2019.01.014
  13. Choi SH, Kang DY, Cha JY, Jung YS, Baik HS, Hwang CJ. Is there a difference in stability after intraoral vertical ramus osteotomy between vertically high-angle and normal-angle patients? J Oral Maxillofac Surg. 2016; 74: 2252-60. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.joms.2016.06.167
  14. Keum BT, Choi SH, Choi YJ, Baik HS, Lee KJ. Effects of bodily retraction of mandibular incisors versus mandibular setback surgery on pharyngeal airway space: a comparative study. Korean J Orthod. 2017; 47: 344-52. https://doi.org/10.4041/kjod.2017.47.6.344
  15. Bell WH. Correction of mandibular prognathism by mandibular setback and advancement genioplasty. Int J Oral Surg. 1981; 10: 221-9. https://doi.org/10.1016/s0300-9785(81)80063-4
  16. Arnett GW, Bergman RT. Facial keys to orthodontic diagnosis and treatment planning--Part II. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop. 1993; 103: 395-411. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0889-5406(05)81791-3
  17. Arnett GW, Bergman RT. Facial keys to orthodontic diagnosis and treatment planning. Part I. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop. 1993; 103: 299-312. https://doi.org/10.1016/0889-5406(93)70010-L
  18. Legan HL, Burstone CJ. Soft tissue cephalometric analysis for orthognathic surgery. J Oral Surg. 1980; 38: 744-51.
  19. Lew KK, Ho KK, Keng SB, Ho KH. Soft-tissue cephalometric norms in Chinese adults with esthetic facial profiles. J Oral Maxillofac Surg. 1992; 50: 1184-9; discussion 1189-90. https://doi.org/10.1016/0278-2391(92)90151-O
  20. Ghorbanyjavadpour F, Rakhshan V. Factors associated with the beauty of soft-tissue profile. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop. 2019; 155: 832-43. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ajodo.2018.07.020
  21. Vargo JK, Gladwin M, Ngan P. Association between ratings of facial attractivess and patients' motivation for orthognathic surgery. Orthod Craniofac Res. 2003; 6: 63-71. https://doi.org/10.1046/j.1439-0280.2003.2c097.x
  22. Fabre M, Mossaz C, Christou P, Kiliaridis S. Orthodontists' and laypersons' aesthetic assessment of Class III subjects referred for orthognathic surgery. Eur J Orthod. 2009; 31: 443-8. https://doi.org/10.1093/ejo/cjp002
  23. 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.
  24. Kwon SM, Hwang JJ, Jung YH, Cho BH, Lee KJ, Hwang CJ, Choi SH. Similarity index for intuitive assessment of three-dimensional facial asymmetry. Sci Rep. 2019; 9: 10959. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41598-019-47477-x