ABSTRACT
The way the surgical orthodontic team approach has been developed over the years is described in its historical context. Originally orthodontists and surgeons worked more or less separately from each other. Nowadays a team of specialists including psychologists takes care of the patient. The importance to balance the indications for surgical orthodontic treatment against the contra-indications is emphasized.
Subject(s)
Maxillofacial Abnormalities/surgery , Orthodontics/trends , Osteotomy/methods , Patient Care Team/organization & administration , Surgery, Oral/trends , History, 19th Century , History, 20th Century , Humans , Maxillofacial Abnormalities/history , Netherlands , Orthodontics/history , Patient Care Team/history , Patient Care Team/trends , Surgery, Oral/historyABSTRACT
Two hundred eighty-two patients who received surgical-orthodontic treatment to correct anterior open bite were retrospectively evaluated by interview and questionnaires to determine the motivation and expectations before treatment, experience during treatment, psychosocial impact, functional and esthetic results, and satisfaction. All patients underwent a Le Fort I osteotomy, and 126 patients also received a bilateral sagittal split advancement osteotomy. The mean follow-up was 6 years. The most important reasons for treatment, as cited by the patients, were biting and chewing problems (28%), dissatisfaction with facial appearance (26%), and symptoms of temporomandibular joint (TMJ) dysfunction (21%). Patients with anterior open bite had a critical attitude toward facial appearance; therefore, esthetic aspects should be taken seriously. The expectations on chewing ability, phonetics, nasal passage, and facial appearance were met by the treatment; however, expectations on TMJ function, interincisal relationship, and biting ability were not completely fulfilled. There was a subjective improvement of TMJ sounds in 27% and a worsening in 14% of the patients. Dysesthesia of the infraorbital nerve was noticed in 4% of patients and of the mental or inferior alveolar nerve in 23% of the patients. Chewing and biting abilities improved in 53% and 73%, respectively. Facial appearance, self-confidence, and social interaction had improved. Patients had expected more information before and psychologic support after treatment. Despite the relapse of open bite in 20% of the patients, 75% were satisfied with the dental and 85% with the facial appearance.
