Limits...
Validity of a manual soft tissue profile prediction method following mandibular setback osteotomy.

Kolokitha OE - Eur J Dent (2007)

Bottom Line: To test the validity of the manual method the prediction tracings were compared to the actual post-operative tracings.Comparison between manual prediction tracings and the actual post-operative profile showed that the manual method results in more convex soft tissue profiles; the upper lip was found in a more prominent position, upper lip thickness was increased and, the mandible and lower lip were found in a less posterior position than that of the actual profiles.Comparison between computerized and manual prediction methods showed that in the manual method upper lip thickness was increased, the upper lip was found in a more anterior position and the lower anterior facial height was increased as compared to the computerized prediction method.

View Article: PubMed Central - PubMed

Affiliation: Department of Orthodontics, School of Dentistry, Aristotle University of Thessaloniki, Thessaloniki, Greece.

ABSTRACT

Objectives: The aim of this study was to determine the validity of a manual cephalometric method used for predicting the post-operative soft tissue profiles of patients who underwent mandibular setback surgery and compare it to a computerized cephalometric prediction method (Dentofacial Planner). Lateral cephalograms of 18 adults with mandibular prognathism taken at the end of pre-surgical orthodontics and approximately one year after surgery were used.

Methods: To test the validity of the manual method the prediction tracings were compared to the actual post-operative tracings. The Dentofacial Planner software was used to develop the computerized post-surgical prediction tracings. Both manual and computerized prediction printouts were analyzed by using the cephalometric system PORDIOS. Statistical analysis was performed by means of t-test.

Results: Comparison between manual prediction tracings and the actual post-operative profile showed that the manual method results in more convex soft tissue profiles; the upper lip was found in a more prominent position, upper lip thickness was increased and, the mandible and lower lip were found in a less posterior position than that of the actual profiles. Comparison between computerized and manual prediction methods showed that in the manual method upper lip thickness was increased, the upper lip was found in a more anterior position and the lower anterior facial height was increased as compared to the computerized prediction method.

Conclusions: Cephalometric simulation of post-operative soft tissue profile following orthodontic-surgical management of mandibular prognathism imposes certain limitations related to the methods implied. However, both manual and computerized prediction methods remain a useful tool for patient communication.

No MeSH data available.


Related in: MedlinePlus

Dentoskeletal and soft tissue cephalometric landmarks used in the comparison of the prediction and post-treatment computer profile printouts. G=glabella; S=sella; N=nasion; N’=soft tissue nasion; P=porion; O=orbital; Ba=basion; Pn=pronasale; Pns=posterior nasal spine; Ans=anterior nasal spine; Isa=incision superior apical; Sn=subnasale; A=point A; A’=soft tissue point A; U1=maxillary incisor; Ls=labrale superius; Iii=incision inferior incisal; Sts=stomion superius; Sti=stomion inferius; St=stomion; L1= mandibular incisor; Isi=incision superior incisal; Li=labrale inferius; Tgo=tangent gonion; B=point B; B’=soft tissue point B; Iia=incision inferior apical; Pg=pogonion; Pg’=soft tissue pogonion; Me=menton; Me’=soft tissue menton
© Copyright Policy
Related In: Results  -  Collection


getmorefigures.php?uid=PMC2609908&req=5

f2-0010202: Dentoskeletal and soft tissue cephalometric landmarks used in the comparison of the prediction and post-treatment computer profile printouts. G=glabella; S=sella; N=nasion; N’=soft tissue nasion; P=porion; O=orbital; Ba=basion; Pn=pronasale; Pns=posterior nasal spine; Ans=anterior nasal spine; Isa=incision superior apical; Sn=subnasale; A=point A; A’=soft tissue point A; U1=maxillary incisor; Ls=labrale superius; Iii=incision inferior incisal; Sts=stomion superius; Sti=stomion inferius; St=stomion; L1= mandibular incisor; Isi=incision superior incisal; Li=labrale inferius; Tgo=tangent gonion; B=point B; B’=soft tissue point B; Iia=incision inferior apical; Pg=pogonion; Pg’=soft tissue pogonion; Me=menton; Me’=soft tissue menton

Mentions: Four profile tracings were available for each patient: pre-operative, computerized prediction, manual prediction and actual post-operative. All tracings were digitized and entered into the computerized cephalometric software system PORDIOS (Purpose On Request Digitizer Input-Output System, Institute of Orthodontic Computer Sciences, Aarhus, Denmark), which calculated all the cephalometric variables used in this study. In order to compare the computerized and manual prediction profiles and to test the prediction validity of the manual method (comparison between manually predicted and actual post-operative profiles) the author used the Profile Analysis cephalometric appraisal (included in the PORDIOS software), which incorporates variables from different well-known cephalometric analyses.26 Profile Analysis includes 30 landmarks and 59 linear and angular variables.27 For each patient, 30 cephalometric landmarks where identified on the computerized prediction, manual prediction and actual post-treatment profile tracings (Figure 2). Identification of landmarks, tracings, superimpositions, digitizing of cephalograms and computer printouts were performed by the author.


Validity of a manual soft tissue profile prediction method following mandibular setback osteotomy.

Kolokitha OE - Eur J Dent (2007)

Dentoskeletal and soft tissue cephalometric landmarks used in the comparison of the prediction and post-treatment computer profile printouts. G=glabella; S=sella; N=nasion; N’=soft tissue nasion; P=porion; O=orbital; Ba=basion; Pn=pronasale; Pns=posterior nasal spine; Ans=anterior nasal spine; Isa=incision superior apical; Sn=subnasale; A=point A; A’=soft tissue point A; U1=maxillary incisor; Ls=labrale superius; Iii=incision inferior incisal; Sts=stomion superius; Sti=stomion inferius; St=stomion; L1= mandibular incisor; Isi=incision superior incisal; Li=labrale inferius; Tgo=tangent gonion; B=point B; B’=soft tissue point B; Iia=incision inferior apical; Pg=pogonion; Pg’=soft tissue pogonion; Me=menton; Me’=soft tissue menton
© Copyright Policy
Related In: Results  -  Collection

Show All Figures
getmorefigures.php?uid=PMC2609908&req=5

f2-0010202: Dentoskeletal and soft tissue cephalometric landmarks used in the comparison of the prediction and post-treatment computer profile printouts. G=glabella; S=sella; N=nasion; N’=soft tissue nasion; P=porion; O=orbital; Ba=basion; Pn=pronasale; Pns=posterior nasal spine; Ans=anterior nasal spine; Isa=incision superior apical; Sn=subnasale; A=point A; A’=soft tissue point A; U1=maxillary incisor; Ls=labrale superius; Iii=incision inferior incisal; Sts=stomion superius; Sti=stomion inferius; St=stomion; L1= mandibular incisor; Isi=incision superior incisal; Li=labrale inferius; Tgo=tangent gonion; B=point B; B’=soft tissue point B; Iia=incision inferior apical; Pg=pogonion; Pg’=soft tissue pogonion; Me=menton; Me’=soft tissue menton
Mentions: Four profile tracings were available for each patient: pre-operative, computerized prediction, manual prediction and actual post-operative. All tracings were digitized and entered into the computerized cephalometric software system PORDIOS (Purpose On Request Digitizer Input-Output System, Institute of Orthodontic Computer Sciences, Aarhus, Denmark), which calculated all the cephalometric variables used in this study. In order to compare the computerized and manual prediction profiles and to test the prediction validity of the manual method (comparison between manually predicted and actual post-operative profiles) the author used the Profile Analysis cephalometric appraisal (included in the PORDIOS software), which incorporates variables from different well-known cephalometric analyses.26 Profile Analysis includes 30 landmarks and 59 linear and angular variables.27 For each patient, 30 cephalometric landmarks where identified on the computerized prediction, manual prediction and actual post-treatment profile tracings (Figure 2). Identification of landmarks, tracings, superimpositions, digitizing of cephalograms and computer printouts were performed by the author.

Bottom Line: To test the validity of the manual method the prediction tracings were compared to the actual post-operative tracings.Comparison between manual prediction tracings and the actual post-operative profile showed that the manual method results in more convex soft tissue profiles; the upper lip was found in a more prominent position, upper lip thickness was increased and, the mandible and lower lip were found in a less posterior position than that of the actual profiles.Comparison between computerized and manual prediction methods showed that in the manual method upper lip thickness was increased, the upper lip was found in a more anterior position and the lower anterior facial height was increased as compared to the computerized prediction method.

View Article: PubMed Central - PubMed

Affiliation: Department of Orthodontics, School of Dentistry, Aristotle University of Thessaloniki, Thessaloniki, Greece.

ABSTRACT

Objectives: The aim of this study was to determine the validity of a manual cephalometric method used for predicting the post-operative soft tissue profiles of patients who underwent mandibular setback surgery and compare it to a computerized cephalometric prediction method (Dentofacial Planner). Lateral cephalograms of 18 adults with mandibular prognathism taken at the end of pre-surgical orthodontics and approximately one year after surgery were used.

Methods: To test the validity of the manual method the prediction tracings were compared to the actual post-operative tracings. The Dentofacial Planner software was used to develop the computerized post-surgical prediction tracings. Both manual and computerized prediction printouts were analyzed by using the cephalometric system PORDIOS. Statistical analysis was performed by means of t-test.

Results: Comparison between manual prediction tracings and the actual post-operative profile showed that the manual method results in more convex soft tissue profiles; the upper lip was found in a more prominent position, upper lip thickness was increased and, the mandible and lower lip were found in a less posterior position than that of the actual profiles. Comparison between computerized and manual prediction methods showed that in the manual method upper lip thickness was increased, the upper lip was found in a more anterior position and the lower anterior facial height was increased as compared to the computerized prediction method.

Conclusions: Cephalometric simulation of post-operative soft tissue profile following orthodontic-surgical management of mandibular prognathism imposes certain limitations related to the methods implied. However, both manual and computerized prediction methods remain a useful tool for patient communication.

No MeSH data available.


Related in: MedlinePlus