Download PDF
CC BY 4.0 · Eur J Dent 2023; 17(02): 381-386
DOI: 10.1055/s-0042-1749364
Original Article

Evaluation of Skeletal Changes after Mandibular Setback Surgery Using the NM-Low Z Plasty Technique in Skeletal Class III Patients

Sarunpong Imampai 
1   Division of Orthodontics, Faculty of Dentistry, Thammasat University, Pathum Thani, Thailand
,
Siripatra Patchanee
1   Division of Orthodontics, Faculty of Dentistry, Thammasat University, Pathum Thani, Thailand
2   Thammasat University Research Unit in Mineralized Tissue Reconstruction, Thammasat University, Pathum Thani, Thailand
,
Awiruth Klaisiri
3   Division of Restorative Dentistry, Faculty of Dentistry, Thammasat University, Pathum Thani, Thailand
4   Thammasat University Research Unit in Restorative and Esthetic Dentistry, Thammasat University, Pathum Thani, Thailand
,
Narissaporn Chaiprakit 
2   Thammasat University Research Unit in Mineralized Tissue Reconstruction, Thammasat University, Pathum Thani, Thailand
5   Division of Oral and Maxillofacial Surgery, Faculty of Dentistry, Thammasat University, Pathum Thani, Thailand
› Author Affiliations
› Further Information
Also available at
   Permissions and Reprints

Abstract

Objective The study's objective was to evaluate skeletal changes in 38 skeletal class III patients following mandibular setback surgery using NM-Low Z plasty.

Materials and Methods Thirty-eight skeletal class III patients (ANB angle lower than 0) who underwent the NM-Low Z plasty technique for surgical mandibular setback procedure at Thammasat University Hospital between January 2017 and March 2020 were included in the study: 29 patients had two jaw surgeries, and 9 patients had one jaw surgery. An additional 14 patients had genioplasty. Three lateral cephalograms were traced and digitized with Dolphin Imaging software: T0, T1, and T2. The distance between the B-point and the SN7 perpendicular line defined immediate changes after surgery (T1-T0) and stability after surgery (T2-T1). The reliability test included 6 cephalograms retraced after 2-week interval. At point B, the principal result was horizontal movement forward.

Statistical Analysis The analysis used paired t-tests.

Results The mean mandibular setback was 9.78 mm, and the mean skeletal relapse was 2.61 mm, or 26.69%. Statistical analysis showed postoperative differences (p < 0.05). Vertical measurement in B-SN7 reduced immediately and postoperatively.

Conclusion Postoperatively, the mandible relapsed significantly forward and upward. Rotational relapse is a concern with NM-Low Z plasty in hypo-/normodivergent patients.

Keywords

malocclusion - mandibular setback - orthodontics - orthognathic surgery - skeletal class III - skeletal relapse


Publication History

Article published online:
04 July 2022

© 2022. The Author(s). This is an open access article published by Thieme under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License, permitting unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction so long as the original work is properly cited. (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/)

Thieme Medical and Scientific Publishers Pvt. Ltd.
A-12, 2nd Floor, Sector 2, Noida-201301 UP, India

 

  • References

  • 1 Hardy DK, Cubas YP, Orellana MF. Prevalence of angle class III malocclusion: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Open J Epidemiol 2012; 2: 75-82
    CrossrefGoogle Scholar
  • 2 Böckmann R, Meyns J, Dik E, Kessler P. The modifications of the sagittal ramus split osteotomy: a literature review. Plast Reconstr Surg Glob Open 2015; 2 (12) e271
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 3 Monson LA. Bilateral sagittal split osteotomy. Semin Plast Surg 2013; 27 (03) 145-148
    Article in Thieme ConnectPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 4 Tangarturonrasme P, Sununliganon L. Modified bilateral sagittal split osteotomy for correction of severe anterior open bite: technical note and case report. Chula Med J 2016; 60 (01) 45-54
    Google Scholar
  • 5 Chaiprakit N, Oupadissakoon C, Klaisiri A, Patchanee S. A surgeon-friendly BSSO by the novel modification of Low Z Plasty: approach focus and case report: a case report. J Int Dent Med Res 2021; 14 (02) 768-772
    Google Scholar
  • 6 Tahmasbi S, Jamilian A, Showkatbakhsh R, Pourdanesh F, Behnaz M. Cephalometric changes in nasopharyngeal area after anterior maxillary segmental distraction versus Le Fort I osteotomy in patients with cleft lip and palate. Eur J Dent 2018; 12 (03) 393-397
    Article in Thieme ConnectPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 7 Ardani IGAW, Dinata FC, Triwardhani A. The importance of the occlusal plane in predicting better facial soft tissue in class II malocclusion in Ethnic Javanese. Eur J Dent 2020; 14 (03) 429-434
    Article in Thieme ConnectPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 8 Kim CH, Lee JH, Cho JY, Lee JH, Kim KW. Skeletal stability after simultaneous mandibular angle resection and sagittal split ramus osteotomy for correction of mandible prognathism. J Oral Maxillofac Surg 2007; 65 (02) 192-197
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 9 Kim MJ, Kim SG, Park YW. Positional stability following intentional posterior ostectomy of the distal segment in bilateral sagittal split ramus osteotomy for correction of mandibular prognathism. J Craniomaxillofac Surg 2002; 30 (01) 35-40
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 10 Baccetti T, Franchi L, McNamara Jr JA. An improved version of the cervical vertebral maturation (CVM) method for the assessment of mandibular growth. Angle Orthod 2002; 72 (04) 316-323
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 11 Kasinathan G, Kommi PB, Kumar SM, Yashwant A, Arani N, Sabapathy S. Evaluation of soft tissue landmark reliability between manual and computerized plotting methods. J Contemp Dent Pract 2017; 18 (04) 317-321
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 12 Erkan M, Gurel HG, Nur M, Demirel B. Reliability of four different computerized cephalometric analysis programs. Eur J Orthod 2012; 34 (03) 318-321
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 13 Mahto RK, Kharbanda OP, Duggal R, Sardana HK. A comparison of cephalometric measurements obtained from two computerized cephalometric softwares with manual tracings. J Indian Orthod Soc 2016; 50 (03) 162-170
    CrossrefGoogle Scholar
  • 14 Paixao MB, Sobral MC, Vogel CJ, de Araujo TM. Comparative study between manual and digital cephalometric tracing using Dolphin Imaging software with lateral radiographs. Dental Press J Orthod 2010; 15 (06) 123-130
    Google Scholar
  • 15 Daskalogiannakis J. Glossary of Orthodontic Terms. 1st ed. Michigan: Quintessence Books; 2000: 64-73
    Google Scholar
  • 16 Dahlberg G. Statistical methods for medical and biological students. BMJ 1940; 2 (4158): 358-359
    CrossrefGoogle Scholar
  • 17 Lee NK, Kim YK, Yun PY, Kim JW. Evaluation of post-surgical relapse after mandibular setback surgery with minimal orthodontic preparation. J Craniomaxillofac Surg 2013; 41 (01) 47-51
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 18 Ko EW, Hsu SS, Hsieh HY, Wang YC, Huang CS, Chen YR. Comparison of progressive cephalometric changes and postsurgical stability of skeletal Class III correction with and without presurgical orthodontic treatment. J Oral Maxillofac Surg 2011; 69 (05) 1469-1477
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 19 Gaitán Romero L, Mulier D, Orhan K. et al. Evaluation of long-term hard tissue remodelling after skeletal class III orthognathic surgery: a systematic review. Int J Oral Maxillofac Surg 2020; 49 (01) 51-61
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 20 Hsu SS, Huang CS, Chen PK, Ko EW, Chen YR. The stability of mandibular prognathism corrected by bilateral sagittal split osteotomies: a comparison of bi-cortical osteosynthesis and mono-cortical osteosynthesis. Int J Oral Maxillofac Surg 2012; 41 (02) 142-149
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 21 Imerb N, Supanchart C, Sriyaranya N, Apisariyakul J, Mahasanatipiya P, Sastraruji T. Skeletal relapse after mandibular setback in skeletal class III with high mandibular plane angle patients. Int J Oral Maxillofac Surg 2015; 44: e228
    CrossrefGoogle Scholar
  • 22 Jacobs JD, Sinclair PM. Principles of orthodontic mechanics in orthognathic surgery cases. Am J Orthod 1983; 84 (05) 399-407
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 23 Capelozza Filho L, Martins A, Mazzotini R, da Silva Filho OG. Effects of dental decompensation on the surgical treatment of mandibular prognathism. Int J Adult Orthodon Orthognath Surg 1996; 11 (02) 165-180
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 24 Proffit WR, Fields H, Larson B, Sarver D. Contemporary Orthodontics. 6th ed. Philadelphia: Elsevier; 2018: 556-578
    Google Scholar
  • 25 Andrews LF. The six keys to normal occlusion. Am J Orthod 1972; 62 (03) 296-309
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 26 Dumrongwanich O, Chantarapanich N, Patchanee S, Inglam S, Chaiprakit N. Finite element analysis between Hunsuck/Epker and novel modification of Low Z plasty technique of mandibular sagittal split osteotomy. Proc Inst Mech Eng H 2022; 23: 9544119221082436
    Google Scholar