Skip to main content

Advertisement

Log in

Improvement of Chin Profile after Mandibular Setback and Reduction Genioplasty for Correction of Prognathism and Long Chin

  • Original Article
  • Craniofacial/Maxillofacial
  • Published:
Aesthetic Plastic Surgery Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Background

This study evaluated the changes in the chin profile after using mandibular setback and vertical chin reduction genioplasty to correct mandibular prognathism associated with a long and flat chin.

Methods

Sixteen consecutive patients (6 male and 10 female) underwent surgery at a mean age of 22.6 years (range = 18.2–27.8 years). The evaluation consisted of hard and soft tissue analysis before and after treatment.

Results

The results showed that improvement in facial profile, chin contour, and dental occlusion was achieved. After an average of 9.4-mm mandibular setback and 5.1-mm vertical osseous chin reduction, the thickness of soft tissue pogonion was increased by 4.0 mm, the supramentale thickness was increased by 1.8 mm, and lower-lip thickness was increased by 1.6 mm. Thus, the mentolabial fold increased from 3.4 to 4.7 mm and the mentolabial angle decreased from 153.4 to 136.9°. The vertical lip:chin ratio became normal.

Conclusion

The results of this study demonstrated that mandibular setback combined with vertical chin reduction genioplasty offers an alternative for the treatment of patients suffering from mandibular prognathism with a long, nonprojecting chin.

Level of Evidence IV

This journal requires that authors assign a level of evidence to each article. For a full description of these Evidence-Based Medicine ratings, please refer to the Table of Contents or the online Instructions to Authors www.springer.com/00266.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Fig. 1
Fig. 2
Fig. 3
Fig. 4

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. Trauner R, Obwegeser H (1957) The surgical correction of mandibular prognathism and retrognathia with consideration of genioplasty. Oral Surg 10:677–689

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  2. Gjorup H, Athanasiou AE (1991) Soft-tissue and dentoskeletal profile changes associated with mandibular setback osteotomy. Am J Orthod Dentofac Orthop 100:312–323

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  3. Schatz JP, Tsimas P (1995) Cephalometric evaluation of surgical orthodontic treatment of skeletal Class III malocclusion. Int J Adult Orthodont Orthognath Surg 10:173–180

    CAS  Google Scholar 

  4. Lin SS, Kerr WJ (1998) Soft and hard tissue changes in Class III patients treated by maxillary surgery. Eur J Orthod 20:25–33

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  5. Enacar A, Taner T, Toroglu S (1999) Analysis of soft tissue profile changes associated with mandibular setback and double-jaw surgery. Int Adult Orthod Orthognath Surg 14:27–35

    CAS  Google Scholar 

  6. Mobarak KA, Krogstad O, Espeland L, Lyberg T (2001) Factors influencing the predictability of soft tissue profile changes following mandibular setback surgery. Angle Orthod 71:216–227

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  7. Eggensperger N, Lieger O, Thuer U, Iizuka T (2007) Soft tissue profile changes following mandibular advancement and setback surgery an average of 12 years postoperatively. J Oral Maxillofac Surg 65:2301–2310

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  8. Fanibunda KB (1989) Change in the facial profile following correction for mandibular prognathism. Br J Oral Maxillofac Surg 27:277–286

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  9. Hu J, Wang D, Luo S, Chen Y (1999) Differences in soft tissue profile changes following mandibular setback in Chinese men and women. J Oral Maxillofac Surg 57:1182–1186

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  10. Naoumova J, Soderfeldt B, Lindman R (2008) Soft tissue profile changes after vertical ramus osteotomy. Eur J Orthod 30:359–365

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  11. McBride KL, Bell WH (1980) Surgical correction of dentofacial deformities. Saunders, Philadelphia, p 1210

    Google Scholar 

  12. Gallagher DM, Bell WH, Storum KA (1984) Soft tissue changes associated with advancement genioplasty performed concomitantly with superior repositioning of the maxilla. J Oral Maxillofac Surg 42:238–242

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  13. Rosen HM (1991) Aesthetic refinements in genioplasty: the role of the labiomental fold. Plast Reconstr Surg 88:760–767

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  14. Rosen HM (1995) Aesthetic guidelines in genioplasty: the role of facial disproportion. Plast Reconstr Surg 95:463–469

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  15. Krekmanov L, Kahnberg K (1992) Soft tissue response to genioplasty procedures. Br J Oral Maxillofac Surg 30:87–91

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  16. Burstone CJ, James RB, Legan H, Murphy GA, Norton LA (1979) Cephalometrics for orthognathic surgery. J Oral Surg 36:269–277

    Google Scholar 

  17. Legan H, Burston CJ (1980) Soft tissue cephalometric analysis for orthognathic surgery. J Oral Surg 38:744–751

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  18. Bell WH, Proffit WR, White RP (1980) Surgical correction of dentaofacial deformities, volume I. Saunders, Philadelphia, pp 137–150

    Google Scholar 

  19. Xu TM, Liu Y, Yang MZ, Huang W (2006) Comparison of extraction versus nonextraction orthodontic treatment outcomes for borderline Chinese patients. Am J Orthod Dentofac Orthop 129:672–677

    Article  Google Scholar 

  20. Holdaway RA (1983) A soft-tissue cephalometric analysis and its use in orthodontic treatment planning. Part I. Am J Orthod 84:1–28

    CAS  Google Scholar 

  21. Chaushu G, Blinder D, Taichber S, Chaushu S (2001) The effect of precise reattachment of the mentalis muscle on the soft tissue response to genioplasty. J Oral Maxillofac Surg 59:510–516

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  22. Dahlberg G (1940) Statistical methods for medical and biological students. Interscience Publications, New York

    Google Scholar 

  23. Gonzalez-Ulloa M (1962) Quantitative principles in cosmetic surgery of the face (profileplasty). Plast Reconstr Surg 29:186–198

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  24. Ricketts RM (1981) Perspectives in the clinical application of cephalometrics. The first five years. Angle Orthod 51:115–150

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  25. Roszkowski MJ (1995) Soft tissue changes associated with orthognathic surgery. Oral and maxillofacial surgery knowledge update, vol 1, part II. Rosemont, IL: AAOMS, pp 57–73

  26. Yu CC, Bergeron L, Lin CH, Chu YM, Chen YR (2009) Single-splint technique in orthognathic surgery: intraoperative checkpoints to control facial symmetry. Plast Reconstr Surg 124:879–886

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  27. Wisth PJ (1975) Integumental profile changes caused by surgical treatment of mandibular protrusion. Int J Oral Surg 4:32–39

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  28. Moate SJ, Darendeliler MA (2002) Cephalometric norms for the Chinese: a compilation of existing data. Aust Orthod J 18:19–26

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

Download references

Conflict of interest

The authors have no conflicts of interest or financial ties to disclose.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Lun-Jou Lo.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Ho, CT., Huang, CS. & Lo, LJ. Improvement of Chin Profile after Mandibular Setback and Reduction Genioplasty for Correction of Prognathism and Long Chin. Aesth Plast Surg 36, 1198–1206 (2012). https://doi.org/10.1007/s00266-012-9933-y

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00266-012-9933-y

Keywords

Navigation