Surgeon-Patient Communications

  • Harvey M. Rosen


Orthognathic surgical patients can potentially undergo major and dramatic changes in their appearances. Although these changes are intended to be positive, the patient’s perception of these changes must coincide with those of the surgeon. This is true in both a qualitative and quantitative sense. For purposes of this discussion, qualitative perceptions refer to directions of skeletal displacements, whereas quantitative perceptions refer to the magnitude of such displacements. The ability of the surgeon and the patient to communicate with one another must be present to establish the similarity and/or differences of these aesthetic perceptions. This, in turn, has obvious psychologic implications as it relates to the postoperative emotional adjustments of the patient.


Mandibular Advancement Aesthetic Objective Sagittal Split Ramus Osteotomy Aesthetic Perception Facial Convexity 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Suggested Reading

  1. 1.
    Ackerman, J.L. and Proffit, W.R.: Communication in orthodontic treatment planning: Bioethical and informed consent issues. The Angle Orthodontist65: 253, 1995.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Kijak, H.A. and Bell, R.: Psychosocial complications in surgery and orthodontics. In W.R. Proffit and R.P. White (Eds.): Surgical Orthodontic Treatment. St. Louis: Mosby, 1991, pp. 71 – 92.Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Kijak, H.A., Hobal, T., and West, R.A.: Psychologic changes in orthognathic surgery patients: A 24-month follow-up. J Oral Surg42: 506, 1984.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Lanigan, D.T., Hey, J.H., and West, R.A.: Major vascular complications following orthognthic surgery: Hemorrhage associated with Le Fort I osteotomies. J Oral Maxillofac Surg48: 561, 1990.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Lanigan, D.T., Hey, J.H., and West, R.A.: Aseptic necrosis following maxillary osteotomies: Report of 36 cases. J Oral Maxillofac Surg48: 142, 1990.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Peterson, L.J. and Topazian, R.: Psychological considerations in corrective maxillary and mandibular surgery. J Oral Maxillofac Surg34: 157, 1976.Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Phillips, C., Hill, B., and Connor, C.: The influence of video imaging on patient’s perceptions and expectations. The Angle Orthodontist65: 263, 1995.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Sarver, D.M.: Videoimaging: The pros and cons. The Angle Orthodontist63: 167, 1993.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Turvey, T.A.: Intraoperative complications of sagittal osteotomy of the mandibular ramus: Incidence and management. J Oral Maxillofac Surg43: 504, 1985.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag New York, Inc. 1999

Authors and Affiliations

  • Harvey M. Rosen
    • 1
    • 2
  1. 1.Pennsylvania HospitalPhiladelphiaUSA
  2. 2.University of Pennsylvania School of MedicinePhiladelphiaUSA

Personalised recommendations