ABSTRACT
This article reviews the literature on nasal changes with maxillary orthognathic surgery. Understanding such changes is vital for surgical planning and for obtaining appropriate informed consent, and there are medico-legal implications. During orthognathic surgical planning a prediction of the effects of the different surgical movements is possible and this forms part of the basis of the planning stage. The predicted changes need to be identified and their desirability or not for each individual patient determined. Some techniques for managing undesirable nasal changes are discussed, including adjunct measures to minimize these potential effects (e.g. cinch sutures), and additional surgical procedures to manage the undesired nasal changes once they are produced.
ABSTRACT
INTRODUCTION: Our aim was to assess changes in maxillary incisor exposure, and upper lip and nasal soft tissues with maxillary advancement with or without impaction, accounting for the use of cinch sutures and VY closures. METHODS: This was a prospective study of 41 consecutive patients undergoing maxillary advancement with or without impaction. Lateral cephalometric radiographs and clinical measurements were taken preoperatively and up to 6 months postoperatively by 1 examiner. RESULTS: Thirty-one patients (19 female, 12 male) with a mean age of 25.5 years (range, 16.9-49.9 years) completed the study. Twenty-six received bimaxillary surgery. Fifteen had simple closures, 6 had cinch sutures, and 10 had alar base cinch and VY closures. The mean amounts of maxillary advancement and impaction were 3.34 and 1.6 mm, respectively. Soft tissues followed increasingly more closely the hard tissue advancement from pronasale to stomion superius. Mean maxillary incisor exposure increased at rest (0.5 mm) and on smiling (1.0 mm). The nasolabial angle increased (1.88°) because of columella upturning. Alar base width (3.09 mm) significantly increased. CONCLUSIONS: Soft to hard tissue horizontal ratios increased progressively from pronasale to stomion superius. Alar base cinch and VY closures increased these further. Maxillary incisor display changes were partly explained by presurgical upper lip thickness and soft tissue manipulation. Nasolabial angle increased, and cinch sutures seemed to increase this further. Alar base width increased significantly, and the cinch sutures did not significantly limit this.
Subject(s)
Incisor/pathology , Lip/pathology , Maxilla/surgery , Nose/pathology , Orthognathic Surgical Procedures/methods , Osteotomy, Le Fort/methods , Adolescent , Adult , Anatomic Landmarks/parasitology , Cephalometry/methods , Female , Follow-Up Studies , Humans , Male , Malocclusion, Angle Class II/surgery , Malocclusion, Angle Class III/surgery , Mandible/pathology , Mandible/surgery , Maxilla/pathology , Middle Aged , Nasal Cartilages/pathology , Nasal Cartilages/surgery , Prospective Studies , Smiling , Surgical Flaps/surgery , Suture Techniques , Young AdultABSTRACT
This prospective questionnaire-based study was designed to determine the incidence of patients attending orthognathic combined clinics who have previously had orthodontic treatment, and to assess the impact, if any, this has had on their proposed surgical treatment. Contemporaneous and historical data from consecutive patients at different stages of treatment who were attending clinics at two London hospitals during a three-month period were included. In total 22/56 patients (39%) had previously had orthodontic treatment, and of those, it had had an undesirable effect on the current management of 10 (45%). The effects included a reduced range of dental movements available to orthodontists (8/23, 35%), undesirable extractions (5/23, 22%), and a prolonging of preoperative orthodontics (5/23, 22%). The median age at which previous orthodontic treatment had been started was 13.5 (range 11-26). Nearly a third of patients reported that they had not been advised by their referring practitioner that a combined orthodontic and surgical approach might be required. The study suggests that preliminary assessment should be improved. Patients should be informed about and prevented from undergoing orthodontic treatment that may limit future surgical management, otherwise they may have to face repeated and prolonged orthodontic treatment, unexpected operations, and potential limitations to the outcome of surgical treatment. This could be achieved through the training and education of all practitioners and the development of referral guidelines.
