Dataset Information

One-splint versus two-splint technique in orthognathic surgery for class III asymmetry: comparison of patient-centred outcomes.

ABSTRACT:

Objectives

Two-jaw orthognathic surgery (OGS) is done using either the one-splint technique with free-hand positioning of the maxillomandibular complex or the two-splint technique with intermediate splints to position the maxilla. It is uncertain which technique achieves better outcomes. This study compares frontal soft tissue symmetry and subjective patient QoL between one-splint and two-splint techniques in skeletal Class III asymmetry patients undergoing OGS with three-dimensional surgical planning.

Materials and methods

This retrospective case-control study comprised 34 one-splint and 46 two-splint OGS patients. Frontal photographs and Orthognathic Quality of Life Questionnaire (OQLQ) were done pre- and post-treatment. Frontal soft tissue symmetry was analysed with the anthropometric Facial Symmetry Index. Measurements were compared with t-tests and chi-squared tests with p-value set at 0.05.

Results

The groups differed in pre-treatment ANB and OQLQ scores. The two-splint group showed significant improvement in all symmetry measures. The one-splint group showed significant improvement in all symmetry measures except midface deviation, upper contour deviation and the Facial Contour Symmetry Index. Both groups showed significant improvement in OQLQ scores. There were no significant differences in post-treatment symmetry measurements and OQLQ scores between groups.

Conclusions

Although two-splint technique may better improve contour symmetry, there were no significant differences in frontal soft tissue symmetry and QoL after OGS in skeletal Class III asymmetry with either one-splint or two-splint technique, with both techniques resulting in significant improvement.

Clinical relevance

One-splint and two-splint surgical techniques produce similar patient-centred outcomes in Class III asymmetry patients.

SUBMITTER: Ng JH

PROVIDER: S-EPMC8602230 | biostudies-literature |

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Similar Datasets

Project description:ObjectiveThis systematic review evaluated the available evidence regarding the skeletal, dentoalveolar, and soft tissue effects of orthodontic camouflage (OC) versus orthodontic-orthognathic surgical (OOS) treatment in borderline class III malocclusion patients.MethodsEligibility criteria. The included studies were clinical trials and/or follow-up observational studies (retrospective and prospective). Information sources. PubMed, Scopus, Science Direct, Web of Science, Cochrane, and LILACS were searched up to October 2021. Risk of bias. Downs and Black quality assessment checklist was used. Synthesis of results. The outcomes were the skeletal, dentoalveolar, and soft tissue changes obtained from pre- and post-cephalometric measurements.ResultsIncluded studies. Out of 2089 retrieved articles, 6 were eligible and thus included in the subsequent analyses. Their overall risk of bias was moderate. Outcome results. The results are presented as pre- and post-treatment values or mean changes in both groups. Two studies reported significant retrusion of the maxillary and mandibular bases in OC, in contrast to significant maxillary protrusion and mandibular retrusion with increased ANB angle in OOS. Regarding the vertical jaw relation, one study reported a significant decrease in mandibular plane inclination in OC and a significant increase in OOS. Most of the included studies reported a significant proclination in the maxillary incisors in both groups. Three studies reported a significant proclination of the mandibular incisors in OOS, while four studies reported retroclination in OC.ConclusionInterpretation. The OSS has a protrusive effect on the maxillary base, retrusive effect on the mandibular base, and thus improvement in the sagittal relationship accompanied with a clockwise rotational effect on the mandibular plane. The OC has more proclination effect on the maxillary incisors and retroclination effect on the mandibular incisors compared to OOS. Limitation. Meta-analysis was not possible due to considerable variations among the included studies. Owing to the fact that some important data in the included studies were missing, conducting further studies with more standardized methodologies is highly urgent. Registration. The protocol for this systematic review was registered at the International Prospective Register of Systematic Reviews (PROSPERO, No.: CRD42020199591).Clinical relevanceThe common features including skeletal, dental, and soft tissue characteristics of borderline class III malocclusion cases make it more difficult to select the most appropriate treatment modality that can be either OC or OOS. The availability of high-level evidence-systematic reviews-makes the clinical decision much more clear and based on scientific basis rather than personal preference.

Project description:BackgroundRecognition of some of the limitations of titanium plates and screws used for the fixation of bones has led to the development of plates manufactured from bioresorbable materials. Whilst resorbable plates appear to offer clinical advantages over metal plates in orthognathic surgery, concerns remain about the stability of fixation and the length of time required for their degradation and the possibility of foreign body reactions. This review compares the use of titanium versus bioresorbable plates in orthognathic surgery and is an update of the Cochrane Review first published in 2007.ObjectivesTo compare the effects of bioresorbable fixation systems with titanium systems used during orthognathic surgery.Search methodsCochrane Oral Health's Information Specialist searched the following databases: Cochrane Oral Health's Trials Register (to 20 January 2017); the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL; 2016, Issue 11) in the Cochrane Library (searched 20 January 2017); MEDLINE Ovid (1946 to 20 January 2017); and Embase Ovid (1980 to 20 January 2017). We searched the US National Institutes of Health Ongoing Trials Register ClinicalTrials.gov (clinicaltrials.gov; searched 20 January 2017), and the World Health Organization International Clinical Trials Registry Platform (searched 20 January 2017) for ongoing trials. No restrictions were placed on the language or date of publication when searching the electronic databases.Selection criteriaRandomised controlled trials comparing bioresorbable versus titanium fixation systems used for orthognathic surgery in adults.Data collection and analysisTwo review authors independently screened the results of the electronic searches, extracted data and assessed the risk of bias of the included studies. We resolved disagreement by discussion. Clinical heterogeneity between the included trials precluded pooling of data, and only a descriptive summary is presented.Main resultsThis review included two trials, involving 103 participants, one comparing titanium with resorbable plates and screws and the other titanium with resorbable screws. Both studies were at high risk of bias and provided very limited data for the primary outcomes of this review. All participants in one trial suffered mild to moderate postoperative discomfort with no statistically significant difference between the two plating groups at different follow-up times. Mean scores of patient satisfaction were 7.43 to 8.63 (range 0 to 10) with no statistically significant difference between the two groups throughout follow-up. Adverse effects reported in one study were two plate exposures in each group occurring between the third and ninth months. Plate exposures occurred mainly in the posterior maxillary region, except for one titanium plate exposure in the mandibular premolar region. Known causes of infection were associated with loosened screws and wound dehiscence with no statistically significant difference in the infection rate between titanium (3/196), and resorbable (3/165) plates.Authors' conclusionsWe do not have sufficient evidence to determine if titanium plates or resorbable plates are superior for fixation of bones after orthognathic surgery. This review provides insufficient evidence to show any difference in postoperative pain and discomfort, level of patient satisfaction, plate exposure or infection for plate and screw fixation using either titanium or resorbable materials.