Accuracy of two-dimensional pharyngeal airway space prediction for bimaxillary orthognathic surgery
- 97 Downloads
The aim of this retrospective study was to evaluate the accuracy of two-dimensional (2D) virtual surgical planning (VSP) of pharyngeal airway space (PAS) in patients submitted to bimaxillary orthognathic surgery.
This study was conducted with lateral cephalograms acquired through cone-beam computed tomography records of 33 patients, divided into group 1—patients submitted to maxillary advancement and mandibular setback (n = 17) and group 2—patients submitted to maxillomandibular advancement (n = 16). Records were taken 1 to 2 months prior to surgery, which was used to perform the 2D VSP (Tp), and 6 to 8 months after surgery (T1). In Dolphin Imaging software, the anteroposterior size of the PAS was calculated at the level of four craniometric points: A, occlusal plane (Mx), B, and pogonion (Pog). Two previously calibrated examiners performed these measurements. Statistical analyses were conducted using Kendall and t tests at a 5% level of significance.
There was a concordance between the two examiners at all points and times. In group 1, points A and B have statistically significant differences between the PAS measurements performed in Tp and T1, while in group 2, none of the PAS points showed statistically significant differences when comparing Tp to T1.
2D computer-based cephalometric prediction in Dolphin Imaging software offers a good orientation to professionals during the surgical procedure of bimaxillary surgeries since its use is considered clinically relevant in daily practice.
KeywordsOrthognathic surgery Virtual surgical planning Pharynx Mandibular advancement
Compliance with ethical standards
Conflict of interest
The authors declare that they have no conflict of interest.
All procedures performed in studies involving human participants were in accordance with the ethical standards of the institutional and/or national research committee and with the 1964 Helsinki declaration and its later amendments or comparable ethical standards.
For this type of study (retrospective study) formal consent is not required.
- 7.Xia JJ, Shevchenko L, Gateno J, Teichgraeber JF, Taylor TD, Lasky RE, English JD, Kau CH, McGrory KR (2011) Outcome study of computer-aided surgical simulation in the treatment of patients with craniomaxillofacial deformities. J Oral Maxillofac Surg 69:2014–2024CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
- 12.El H, Palomo JM (2010) Measuring the airway in 3 dimensions: a reliability and accuracy study. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop 137(Suppl):S50.e1–S50.e9Google Scholar
- 17.Steinhuber T, Brunold S, Gärtner C, Offermanns V, Ulmer H, Ploder O (2018) Is virtual surgical planning in orthognathic surgery faster than conventional planning? A time and workflow analysis of an office-based workflow for single- and double-jaw surgery. J Oral Maxillofac Surg 76:397–407CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
- 22.Xia J, Samman N, Yeung RW, Wang D, Shen SG, Ip HH, Tideman H (2009) Computer-assisted three-dimensional surgical planning and simulation. 3D soft tissue planning and prediction. Int J Oral Maxillofac Surg 29:250e258Google Scholar
- 23.Donatsky O, Bjørn-Jørgensen J, Holmqvist-Larsen M, Hillerup S (1997) Computerized cephalometric evaluation of orthognathic surgical precision and stability in relation to maxillary superior repositioning combined with mandibular advancement or setback. J Oral Maxillofac Surg 55:1071–1079 discussion 1079-80CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
- 26.Magro-Filho O, Magro-Ernica N, Queiroz TP, Aranega AM, Garcia IR Jr (2010) Comparative study of 2 software programs for predicting profile changes in Class III patients having double-jaw orthognathic surgery. Am J Orthod Dentofac Orthop 137:452.e1–452.e5Google Scholar