Journal of Maxillofacial and Oral Surgery

, Volume 17, Issue 2, pp 233–241 | Cite as

Musculoskeletal Changes as a Sequel to Advancement Genioplasty: A Long-Term Cephalometric Prospective Study

  • Abhishek Budharapu
  • Ramen Sinha
  • David P. Tauro
  • Prabhat K. Tiwari
Original Article



The aim of this study was to evaluate cephalometrically the stability of hard tissues and soft tissue changes of advancement genioplasty 2 years after surgery.


A prospective study was conducted which comprised of 25 patients, who underwent advancement genioplasty alone with no other orthognathic surgical procedures. Immediate pre-operative, 6 months postoperative, and 2 years postoperative lateral cephalograms were compiled and assessed.


The mean surgical advancement planned was around 8 mm. Six months post-surgery, the relapse rate was 15% of the surgical advancement which was considerably reduced in the following 18 months to 7%. The ratio of soft tissue to bony advancement at pogonion was 0.9:1. There are significant alterations in the soft tissue profile in terms of decrease in the soft tissue thickness, facial convexity angle, deepened mentolabial sulcus and minimal increase in the lower lip height.


Advancement genioplasty was considered as a relatively stable procedure, if adequate muscular pedicle and internal rigid fixation were maintained. The present study was of 2 years, and we can expect further changes in the hard and soft tissues, which are clinically irrelevant.


Cephalometric Genioplasty Orthognathic Facial convexity Mentolabial 



The authors would like to thank Dr. Anisha, Dr Santhosh Kumar and Dr Himaja for their general support and assistance.

Compliance with Ethical Standards

Conflict of interest

All authors declare that they have no conflict of interest.

Ethical Standard

The study was approved by Institutional Review Committee (IRC) on Ethical Issues, Sri Sai College of Dental Surgery, Vikarabad.


  1. 1.
    Park HS, Ellis E III, Fonseca RJ, Reynolds ST, Mayo KH (1989) A retrospective study of advancement genioplasty. Oral Surg Oral Med Oral Pathol 67:481–489CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Shaughnessy S, Mobarak KA, Hogevold HE, Espeland L (2006) Long term skeletal and soft-tissue responses after advancement genioplasty. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop 130:8–17CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Polido WD, de Clairefont Regis L, Bell WH (1991) Bone resorption, stability, and soft-tissue changes following large chin advancements. J Oral Maxillofac Surg 49:251–256CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Davis WH, Davis CL, Daly BW, Taylor C III (1988) Long-term bony and soft tissue stability following advancement genioplasty. J Oral Maxillofac Surg 46:731–735CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Wittbjer J, Rune B (1989) Changes of the profile after advancement genioplasty. Scand J Plast Reconstr Surg Hand Surg 23:65–70PubMedGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Ewing M, Ross RB (1992) Soft tissue response to mandibular advancement and genioplasty. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop 101:550–555CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    McDonnell JP, McNeill RW, West RA (1977) Advancement genioplasty: a retrospective cephalometric analysis of osseous and soft tissue changes. J Oral Surg 35:640–647PubMedGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Tauro DP, Uppada UK (2015) Oblique sagittal split sliding genioplasty: a new technique. Br J Oral Maxillofac Surg 53(6):572–573CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Burstone CJ, James RB, Legan H, Murphy GA, Norton LA (1978)  Cephalometrics for orthognathic Surgery. J Oral Surg 36(4):269–277PubMedGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Edward E et al (1984) Advancement genioplasty with and without soft tissue pedicle: an experimental investigation. J Oral Maxillofac Surg 42:637–645CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    McNeill RW, Proffit WR, White RP (1972) Cephalometric prediction for orthognathic surgery. Angle Orthod 42:154–164PubMedGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Talebzadeh N, Pogrel MA (2001) Long term hard and soft tissue relapse rate after genioplasty. Oral Surg Oral Med Oral Pathol 91:153–156CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Park JY, Kim MJ, Hwang SJ (2013) Soft tissue profile changes after setback genioplasty in orthognathic surgery patients. J Craniomaxillofac Surg 41(7):657–664CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Pospisil OA (1987) Reliability and feasibility of prediction tracing in orthognathic surgery. J Craniomaxillofac Surg 15:79–83CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Vedtofte P, Nattestad A, Hjorting-Hansen E, Svendsen H (1991) Bone resorption after advancement genioplasty: pedicled and non-pedicled grafts. J Craniomaxillofac Surg 19:102–107CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Sridhar Reddy P, Kashyap B, Hallur N, Sikkermath BC (2011) Advancement genioplasty—cephalometric analysis of osseous and soft tissue changes. J Maxillofac Oral Surg 10(4):288–295CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Reyneke JP, Johnston T, van der Linden WJ (1997) Screw osteosynthesis compared with wire osteosynthesis in advancement genioplasty: a retrospective study of skeletal stability. Br J Oral Maxillofac Surg 35:352–356CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Van Sickels JE, Smith CV, Tiner BD, Jones DL (1994) Hard and soft tissue predictability with advancement genioplasties. Oral Surg Oral Med Oral Pathol 77(3):218–221CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Strauss RA, Abubaker AO (2000) Genioplasty: a case for advancement osteotomy. J Oral Maxillofac Surg 58:783–787CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© The Association of Oral and Maxillofacial Surgeons of India 2017

Authors and Affiliations

  • Abhishek Budharapu
    • 1
  • Ramen Sinha
    • 2
  • David P. Tauro
    • 2
  • Prabhat K. Tiwari
    • 2
  1. 1.Department of Head and Neck OncologyApollo Cancer HospitalHyderabadIndia
  2. 2.Department of Oral and Maxillofacial SurgerySri Sai College of Dental SurgeryHyderabadIndia

Personalised recommendations