Previous Article in Journal
Jaw in a Day: How to Perform Your First Case—Our Workflow
 
 
Font Type:
Arial Georgia Verdana
Font Size:
Aa Aa Aa
Line Spacing:
Column Width:
Background:
Article

Evaluation of the Upper Airway in Class II Patients Undergoing Maxillary Setback and Counterclockwise Rotation in Orthognatic Surgery

by
Flávio Fidêncio de Lima
1,2,
Tayná Mendes Inácio De Carvalho
1,3,
Bianca Pulino
4,5,6,*,
Camila Cerantula
7,
Mônica Grazieli Correa
2 and
Raphael Capelli Guerra
4,5,6,8,*
1
Department of Oral and Maxillofacial Surgery, Encore Clinic, São Paulo 04545-041, Brazil
2
Dental research Division, School of Dentistry, Universidade Paulista-UNIP, São Paulo 04026-002, Brazil
3
School of Dentistry of São José dos Campos, São Paulo State University (UNESP), São José dos Campos 12245-000, Brazil
4
Hospital Sírio-Libanês, Institute of Education and Research, São Paulo 01308-050, Brazil
5
Department of Oral and Maxillofacial Surgery, Leforte Hospital, Américas Health Network, São Paulo 01507-000, Brazil
6
Department of Oral and Maxillofacial Surgery, Hospital Israelita Albert Einstein, São Paulo 05652-900, Brazil
7
School of Dentistry of Araçatuba, São Paulo State University (UNESP), Araçatuba 16015-050, Brazil
8
Faculdade Israelita de Ciências de Saúde Albert Einstein, São Paulo 05653-120, Brazil
*
Authors to whom correspondence should be addressed.
Craniomaxillofac. Trauma Reconstr. 2025, 18(3), 39; https://doi.org/10.3390/cmtr18030039
Submission received: 12 June 2025 / Revised: 14 August 2025 / Accepted: 31 August 2025 / Published: 4 September 2025

Abstract

Introduction: Maxillary setback in orthognathic surgery has been extensively discussed regarding its effects on bone healing and facial soft tissue profile; however, its impact on upper airway volume remains unclear. Objective: We evaluate the influence of maxillary setback combined with counterclockwise (CCW) rotation of the occlusal plane on upper airway dimensions. Methods: A retrospective observational case series was conducted with eight patients diagnosed with Class II malocclusion who underwent orthognathic surgery involving maxillary setback and CCW mandibular rotation. All procedures were performed by the same surgeon. Preoperative (T1) and 6-month postoperative (T2) facial CT scans were analyzed using Dolphin Imaging software11.7 to measure airway volume (VOL), surface area (SA), and linear distances D1, D2 and D3. Statistical analysis was performed using the Wilcoxon test with a 5% significance level. Results: Significant skeletal changes were observed, including 10.2 mm of mandibular advancement, 5.2 mm of hyoid advancement, and 4.1° of CCW rotation. Although increases in airway volume and surface area were noted, they did not reach statistical significance (p = 0.327 and p = 0.050, respectively), but suggesting a favorable trend toward airway adaptation. Conclusions: Maxillary setback combined with CCW rotation appears to safely correct Class II skeletal deformities without compromising upper airway space. These preliminary findings highlight the technique’s potential for both functional and aesthetic outcomes, warranting further long-term studies.

1. Introduction

The upper airway (UA) is a critical anatomical structure for respiratory function and is closely related to occlusion and craniofacial structure. Class II patients are generally narrower anteroposteriorly than in Class I individuals, associating skeletal deformity with potential respiratory function impairment [1,2,3].
Orthognathic surgery, particularly Le Fort I osteotomy with maxillary setback, is widely used to correct dentofacial deformities such as maxillary protrusion [4,5,6,7]. The maxillary setback, combined with CCW rotation of the occlusal plane, aims not only to improve facial aesthetics but also to offer functional benefits by altering the dimensions of the UA [7,8,9]. Manipulation of the occlusal plane during orthognathic surgery can significantly improve the UA volume, especially in the nasopharyngeal and oropharyngeal regions [10,11].
The combination of maxillary setback and CCW rotation of the occlusal plane provides evident aesthetic benefits for patients with maxillary protrusion, contributing to the normalization of the facial profile, particularly the nasolabial angle and upper lip projection [1,12,13]. Additionally, the occlusal plane rotation has favorable implications for the upper airway, such as widening and potential functional improvements, especially in cases of mandibular retrognathism and excessive maxillary vertical growth [6,14,15,16]. Movements like maxillary setback and CCW rotation can induce a significant increase in the UA, offering an additional functional benefit to the patients.
Therefore, the objective of this study is to evaluate the influence of maxillary setback and CCW rotation of the occlusal plane on the dimensions of the upper airway in Class II malocclusion patients undergoing orthognathic surgery. Based on the literature evidence suggesting a relationship between craniofacial structural manipulation and airway changes, this study aims to deepen the understanding of these interventions’ effects on respiratory function and aesthetic outcomes [10,17,18].

2. Materials and Methods

2.1. Study Design

This study was approved by the Ethics Committee (CAAE: 82049424.5.0000.0090). It is a retrospective, longitudinal, and observational case series conducted at the private Encore Clinic. The surgical procedures were performed at Hospital Edmundo Vasconcelos, located in São Paulo, São Paulo (SP, Brazil). The study followed the CARE Statement guidelines and checklist.
Eight patients diagnosed with type II dentofacial deformity and/or long face (Figure 1), who underwent orthognathic surgery involving maxillary setback or vertical impaction with CCW rotation of the occlusal plane, were included. All procedures were carried out by the same surgical team, following a standardized protocol, between February 2021 and January 2023.
Patients eligible for inclusion were those aged 18 years or older, with an SNA angle greater than 82 degrees, diagnosed with type II dentofacial deformity and long face, available for at least 6 months of follow-up, and able to speak, read, and understand the Portuguese language. Exclusion criteria comprised pregnancy, age under 18 years, facial skin infections, a history of minimally invasive treatment for temporomandibular disorders within the last 6 months, severe psychiatric illness or neurological disorders, medical contraindications to treatment or to radiographic/tomographic examinations, ongoing radiotherapy in the head and neck region, inability or unwillingness to provide informed consent, language barriers, or neuropsychomotor developmental delays.

2.2. Surgical Technique

All patients in this study underwent bimaxillary orthognathic surgery combined with genioplasty. A conventional Le Fort I osteotomy was performed, including pterygomaxillary separation using a curved chisel. Bony interferences were identified and removed to allow proper repositioning of the maxilla. When interference persisted after removal of the maxillary tuberosity, the pterygoid plate was ground or removed using bone forceps (Figure 2). Maxillary setback or vertical impaction was performed in combination with CCW rotation and internal rigid fixation. Fixation of the maxillary segment was achieved using two Lindorf miniplates at the piriform rim and two L-shaped miniplates at the zygomatic buttress, along with screws. For the mandibular procedure, a bilateral sagittal split ramus osteotomy (BSSRO) with a short lingual osteotomy was carried out. Each side was fixed using a 4-hole miniplate and screws, along with two or three bicortical positioning screws. Light elastic traction was applied for 3 to 4 weeks postoperatively. Mouth opening exercises began 3 weeks after surgery, aiming for an interincisal opening of over 40 mm within the following 3 weeks. Postoperative orthodontic treatment commenced 6 weeks after surgery. The final sample consisted of 8 patients, including 7 women and 1 man, with a mean age of 29.4 years.

2.3. CT Scan Acquisition and Image Analysis

CT scans were obtained using a Fan Beam System tomograph at two distinct time points: preoperatively, classified as T0, and at six months postoperatively, classified as T1. During imaging, patients were instructed to sit in an upright position with the head in its natural posture, looking straight ahead. Occlusion was maintained in centric relation. The helical beam CT scans were acquired with a slice thickness of 0.5 mm, under the following imaging parameters: 120 kVp, 150 mA, and an exposure time of 750 milliseconds. All data were saved in Digital Imaging and Communications in Medicine (DICOM) format.
Image processing and analysis were performed by a single calibrated operator (ELF) using Dolphin 3D Imaging software, version 11.7 Premium (Dolphin Imaging, Chatsworth, CA, USA). A single blinded examiner was responsible for all measurements. The software’s specific tools for airway analysis were used to assess the upper airway, including superior airway volume (VOL), surface area (A), and linear distances D1, D2, and D3 across the preoperative, immediate postoperative, and intermediate postoperative periods (Figure 3).
To standardize the airway analysis, anatomical limits were defined prior to measurement. The upper limit was determined by a line parallel to the Frankfort Horizontal Plane, extending from the apex of the axis vertebra (C2) beyond the airway boundaries. The anterior limit included the anterior oropharyngeal wall along with its overlying soft tissues. The lower limit corresponded to a line drawn parallel to the Frankfort Horizontal Plane between the lower border of the fourth cervical vertebra (C4) and the anterior oropharyngeal wall. The posterior limit was defined by a line running from the posterior margin of the dens of the axis (C2) to the lower border of the C4 vertebra, encompassing the posterior boundary of the airway space.
Once the region of interest was delineated, the ‘Add Seed Points’ tool was used to initiate the measurement process. Airway space detection sensitivity was standardized at 25%, after which the ‘Update Volume’ function was applied to calculate the volume of the airway segment. Finally, the ‘Measure Area and Angle’ tool was used to determine the cross-sectional area at the most constricted point, identified between two parallel planes placed at the uppermost and lowermost levels of the airway segment.

2.4. Statistical Analysis

Mean, median, standard deviation, minimum and maximum values, as well as interquartile ranges (first and third quartiles), were calculated for the variables under study. Comparisons between preoperative and postoperative measurements were performed using the Wilcoxon signed-rank test. Boxplots, scatter plots, and histograms were generated to visually represent the analyzed variables. A significance level of 5% was adopted. All analyses were conducted using SPSS for Windows, version 25.

3. Results

This study included eight patients with Class II dental deformity and/or a long face who underwent orthognathic surgery involving maxillary setback and CCW rotation of the occlusal plane. The sample consisted of seven women and one man, with an average age of 29.4 years (ranging from 20 to 45 years) (Table 1).
The results demonstrated significant skeletal changes, with a mean mandibular advancement of 10.20 mm (SD ± 4.17; p < 0.001) and a mean hyoid bone advancement of 5.20 mm (SD ± 2.79; p = 0.012), confirming the effectiveness of repositioning. The maxillary setback was moderate, with −1.25 mm at the posterior nasal spine (SD ± 2.67; p = 0.085) and −1.81 mm at the anterior nasal spine (SD ± 2.27; p = 0.042), indicating greater significance in the anterior repositioning. The CCW rotation of the occlusal plane was consistent, with a mean of 4.14° (SD ± 1.90; p = 0.003), reinforcing the precision of the surgical protocol. The vertical movement of the maxilla remained stable (0.12 mm; SD ± 2.38; p = 0.891), with no significant changes (Table 2).
In the airway analysis, the volume increased by 6.2% (p = 0.327), while the area showed a trend toward improvement (20%; p = 0.050), approaching statistical significance. Distance 2 demonstrated a significant increase (p = 0.058), suggesting a functional benefit (Table 3).
The distribution of measurements such as airway volume, surface area, and distances 1, 2, and 3, both preoperatively and six months after surgery, is shown in Scheme 1, Scheme 2, Scheme 3, Scheme 4 and Scheme 5. Preoperative values are presented separately in Scheme 6, Scheme 7, Scheme 8, Scheme 9 and Scheme 10.

4. Discussion

Orthognathic correction combining maxillary setback with CCW rotation of the occlusal plane aims to balance facial profile refinement with airway preservation in patients presenting Class II and long-face patterns. In this series, posterior maxillary movements at ANS and PNS were modest, whereas mandibular advancement reached approximately 10 mm and hyoid advancement approximately 5 mm, with a mean CCW rotation of about 4 degrees (Scheme 11, Scheme 12, Scheme 13 and Scheme 14). At six months postoperatively, airway volume exhibited a small and non-significant increase of roughly 6% (p = 0.327), while the cross-sectional area showed a borderline increase of 20% (p = 0.050). Distance 2 tended to enlarge (p = 0.058), Distance 1 showed a slight, non-significant decrease, and Distance 3 remained stable. These findings suggest an adaptive airway response rather than compromise when maxillary setback is intentionally limited and combined with CCW rotation and mandibular advancement.
The observed patterns are consistent with previous evidence indicating that isolated posterior repositioning of the maxilla may negatively affect the retropalatal segment, whereas CCW rotation and mandibular advancement are associated with enlargement of the pharyngeal airway and attenuation of potential narrowing. Mehra et al. reported increases in the pharyngeal airway space following CCW rotation of the maxillomandibular complex, while de Sousa Miranda et al. demonstrated three-dimensional expansion of the superior airway space in Class II patients after advancement with CCW rotation [15,16]. Conversely, studies addressing posterior impaction or setback have highlighted potential reductions in velopharyngeal and retropalatal dimensions, emphasizing the importance of compensatory surgical planning when maxillary setback is indicated [16]. Recent three-dimensional analyses following Le Fort I setback also describe nasopharyngeal changes, reinforcing that both the direction and magnitude of skeletal movement determine the airway response [16,17]. In the present study, the borderline increase in cross-sectional area and the tendency toward greater Distance 2 (oropharyngeal region) likely reflect the combined effect of mandibular and hyoid advancement offsetting any retropalatal susceptibility to narrowing.
The hyoid advancement documented here, measuring approximately 5 mm (p = 0.012), has clinical relevance, as anterior–inferior displacement of the hyoid complex may tension the suprahyoid musculature and promote hypopharyngeal patency, complementing the airway gains achieved through mandibular advancement [6,15,16,17]. Pereira et al. reported that such airway improvements may persist for up to four years, suggesting that part of the benefit results from skeletal and soft-tissue rebalancing with potential long-term stability [17]. Nevertheless, a recent systematic review of CBCT-based studies underscored the heterogeneity of segmentation protocols, anatomical landmarks, and follow-up intervals, factors that hinder direct inter-study comparisons and may attenuate measurable effects in smaller samples [18]. The standardized ROI definition used here (C2–C4) and consistent thresholding methodology ensured internal comparability, although the six-month observation period may be insufficient to capture late remodeling or relapse, as described in the literature [18].
From a surgical perspective, the protocol adopted in this cohort was designed to minimize retropalatal risk while achieving profile refinement. Limited setback with preservation of ANS projection, careful management of pterygomaxillary interferences, and stabilization at the piriform rim and zygomatic buttress were employed to avoid excessive posterior displacement of the nasomaxillary complex [10,12,19]. When indicated, adjunctive nasal airway procedures and subspinal or horseshoe osteotomy techniques described in the literature may further support nasal airflow and soft-tissue aesthetics without compromising airway safety [4,15]. Esteves et al. emphasized the role of occlusal-plane control in directing skeletal movements along favorable vectors, in line with our use of CCW rotation within a working range of 3 to 7 degrees. (Scheme 11, Scheme 12, Scheme 13, Scheme 14 and Scheme 15) [9,15].
Two methodological points merit attention. First, although the change in airway volume was minimal, the near-significant increase in cross-sectional area suggests that minimal-area measurements may be more sensitive than global volume in detecting functionally relevant changes, an interpretation supported by previous three-dimensional and CBCT-based studies [15,16,17,18]. Second, the small sample size (n = 8) and predominance of female patients limit statistical power for detecting small-to-moderate effects, increasing the likelihood of type II error for findings with borderline significance (p = 0.050–0.058). Larger studies with stratification by sex, skeletal pattern severity, and precise movement vectors are needed to refine the dose–response relationship.
Functional correlation remains essential. While imaging in this series indicated airway stability or a slight positive trend at six months, future research should integrate three-dimensional analysis with validated sleep-quality instrument, such as the Pittsburgh Sleep Quality Index and its Brazilian Portuguese version, and, when possible, overnight monitoring to identify clinically meaningful outcomes in sleep-disordered breathing [18]. In a context of high aesthetic expectations and ethnic diversity, particularly relevant in Brazil, carefully planned non-conventional movements such as controlled maxillary setback can be performed safely when combined with CCW rotation and mandibular advancement, provided that both imaging and functional follow-up are systematically incorporated [14,18,19].
In summary, these findings support a surgical planning model in which limited maxillary setback combined with CCW rotation and mandibular/hyoid advancement achieves the desired aesthetic correction without measurable detriment to upper airway dimensions at six months, with trends suggesting improved cross-sectional patency (Scheme 11, Scheme 12, Scheme 13, Scheme 14 and Scheme 15). These preliminary results align with previous literature and justify larger, long-term investigations to assess stability and to identify patient-specific predictors of airway response [14,20,21].

5. Conclusions

This study found that orthognathic surgery combining maxillary setback with counterclockwise rotation effectively corrected skeletal deformities in Class II and long-face patients. While mandibular and hyoid advancement occurred, airway volume changes after six months were not statistically significant (p > 0.05). Although successful for facial correction, the functional airway impact appears limited short-term. Further long-term studies with larger samples are needed to fully assess airway outcomes, despite the technique’s excellent aesthetic results.

Author Contributions

Conceptualization: F.F.d.L. and T.M.I.D.C.; Methodology: F.F.d.L., T.M.I.D.C., B.P., C.C., R.C.G. and M.G.C.; Software and Validation: B.P., M.G.C. and R.C.G.; Investigation and Data Curation: F.F.d.L. and T.M.I.D.C.; Original Draft: F.F.d.L., T.M.I.D.C. and C.C.; Writing review, editing, project administration and Supervision: B.P. and R.C.G. All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.

Funding

This research received no external funding.

Institutional Review Board Statement

The animal study protocol was approved by the Institutional Review Board (or Ethics Committee) of Hospital Professor Edmundo Vasconcelos (protocol code 82049424.5.0000.0090 in 13 August 2024).

Informed Consent Statement

Written informed consent has been obtained from the patient(s) to publish this paper.

Conflicts of Interest

The authors declare no conflict of interest.

References

  1. Ghoreishian, M.; Gheisari, R. The Effect of Maxillary Multidirectional Movement on Nasal Respiration. J. Oral Maxillofac. Surg. 2009, 67, 2283–2286. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  2. de Freitas, M.R.; Alcazar, N.M.P.V.; Janson, G.; de Freitas, K.M.S.; Henriques, J.F.C. Upper and Lower Pharyngeal Airways in Subjects with Class I and Class II Malocclusions and Different Growth Patterns. Am. J. Orthod. Dentofac. Orthop. 2006, 130, 742–745. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  3. Brito, F.C.; Brunetto, D.P.; Nojima, M.C.G. Three-Dimensional Study of the Upper Airway in Different Skeletal Class II Malocclusion Patterns. Angle Orthod. 2019, 89, 93–101. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  4. Xiang, Z.; Wang, Y.; He, Y.; Wang, Y.; Bi, R.; Li, J. Comparison of Maxillary Setback by Maxillary Tuberosity Removal or Intentional Pterygoid Plate Fracture in Le Fort I Osteotomy: A Long-Term Evaluation. Int. J. Oral. Maxillofac. Surg. 2021, 50, 487–493. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  5. Schouman, T.; Baralle, M.-M.; Ferri, J. Facial Morphology Changes After Total Maxillary Setback Osteotomy. J. Oral Maxillofac. Surg. 2010, 68, 1504–1511. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  6. Mehra, P.; Downie, M.; Pita, M.C.; Wolford, L.M. Pharyngeal Airway Space Changes after Counterclockwise Rotation of the Maxillomandibular Complex. Am. J. Orthod. Dentofac. Orthop. 2001, 120, 154–159. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  7. Zou, Y.; Yang, R.; Yeweng, S.; Wu, Z. MSCT 3D Analysis of Nasopharyngeal Airway After Le Fort I Maxillary Setback Surgeries. J. Craniofacial Surg. 2024, 35, 869–873. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  8. Lee, S.-T.; Park, J.-H.; Kwon, T.-G. Influence of Mandibular Setback Surgery on Three-Dimensional Pharyngeal Airway Changes. Int. J. Oral Maxillofac. Surg. 2019, 48, 1057–1065. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  9. Esteves, L.S.; Ávila, C.; Medeiros, P.J. Changes in Occlusal Plane through Orthognathic Surgery. Dental Press. J. Orthod. 2012, 17, 160–173. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  10. Lee, J.-Y.; Kim, Y.-I.; Hwang, D.-S.; Park, S.-B. Effect of Setback Le Fort I Osteotomy on Midfacial Soft-Tissue Changes as Evaluated by Cone-Beam Computed Tomography Superimposition for Cases of Skeletal Class III Malocclusion. Int. J. Oral Maxillofac. Surg. 2013, 42, 790–795. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  11. Kaygısız, E.; Tuncer, B.B.; Yüksel, S.; Tuncer, C.; Yıldız, C. Effects of Maxillary Protraction and Fixed Appliance Therapy on the Pharyngeal Airway. Angle Orthod. 2009, 79, 660–667. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  12. Ward, J.L.; Garri, J.I.; Wolfe, S.A. Posterior Movements of the Maxilla. J. Craniofacial Surg. 2007, 18, 882–886. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  13. Tomita, D.; Haga, S.; Tanzawa, F.; Miyazawa, T.; Nakano, H.; Maki, K. Maxillary Protrusion with Severe Overjet Treated by Maxillary Anterior Alveolar Osteotomy. Case Rep. Dent. 2024, 2024, 3850765. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  14. Kim, T.; Baek, S.-H.; Choi, J.-Y. Effect of Posterior Impaction and Setback of the Maxilla on Retropalatal Airway and Velopharyngeal Dimensions after Two-Jaw Surgery in Skeletal Class III Patients. Angle Orthod. 2015, 85, 625–630. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  15. de Sousa Miranda, W.; Álvares de Castro Rocha, V.; Lara dos Santos Marques, K.; Trindade Neto, A.I.; do Prado, C.J.; Zanetta-Barbosa, D. Three-Dimensional Evaluation of Superior Airway Space after Orthognathic Surgery with Counterclockwise Rotation and Advancement of the Maxillomandibular Complex in Class II Patients. Oral Surg. Oral Med. Oral Pathol. Oral Radiol. 2015, 120, 453–458. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  16. Pereira, P.K.N.; de Castro Rocha, V.Á.; Degan, V.V.; Garib, D.G.; Vedovello, S.A.S.; de Menezes, C.C. Upper Airways after Mandibular Advancement Orthognathic Surgery: A 4-Year Follow-Up. Am. J. Orthod. Dentofac. Orthop. 2021, 159, 743–749. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  17. Rathi, S.; Gilani, R.; Kamble, R.; Bhandwalkar, S. Temporomandibular Joint Disorder and Airway in Class II Malocclusion: A Review. Cureus 2022, 14, e30515. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  18. Steegman, R.; Hogeveen, F.; Schoeman, A.; Ren, Y. Cone Beam Computed Tomography Volumetric Airway Changes after Orthognathic Surgery: A Systematic Review. Int. J. Oral. Maxillofac. Surg. 2023, 52, 60–71. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  19. Han, J.J.; Hwang, S.J. Evaluation of Early Postoperative Healing of Pterygomaxillary Region after LeFort I Osteotomy with Total Maxillary Setback Movement. Oral Surg. Oral Med. Oral Pathol. Oral Radiol. 2014, 118, 647–654. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  20. Buysse, D.J.; Reynolds, C.F.; Monk, T.H.; Berman, S.R.; Kupfer, D.J. The Pittsburgh Sleep Quality Index: A New Instrument for Psychiatric Practice and Research. Psychiatry Res. 1989, 28, 193–213. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  21. Bertolazi, A.N.; Fagondes, S.C.; Hoff, L.S.; Dartora, E.G.; da Silva Miozzo, I.C.; de Barba, M.E.F.; Menna Barreto, S.S. Validation of the Brazilian Portuguese Version of the Pittsburgh Sleep Quality Index. Sleep Med. 2011, 12, 70–75. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
Figure 1. (A,C) Preoperative: patient with type II dentofacial deformity and long face. (B,D) Postoperative: after orthognathic surgery.
Figure 1. (A,C) Preoperative: patient with type II dentofacial deformity and long face. (B,D) Postoperative: after orthognathic surgery.
Cmtr 18 00039 g001
Figure 2. After maxillary down-fracture, removal of posterior bony interferences to allow maxillary setback.
Figure 2. After maxillary down-fracture, removal of posterior bony interferences to allow maxillary setback.
Cmtr 18 00039 g002
Figure 3. Upper airway analysis performed using Dolphin 3D software 7.11, showing measurement of airway volume (VOL), surface area (A), and linear distances (D1, D2, D3) across different time points pré op and surface area (B) in pos-op.
Figure 3. Upper airway analysis performed using Dolphin 3D software 7.11, showing measurement of airway volume (VOL), surface area (A), and linear distances (D1, D2, D3) across different time points pré op and surface area (B) in pos-op.
Cmtr 18 00039 g003
Scheme 1. Boxplot showing the distribution of upper airway volume measurements preoperatively and six months postoperatively. Each box represents the interquartile range (IQR), with the horizontal line indicating the median volume. Whiskers represent the minimum and maximum values within 1.5 × IQR, and any outliers are displayed as individual points. Airway volume is measured in cubic millimeters (mm3), allowing for visual comparison of central tendency and variability before and after the surgical intervention.
Scheme 1. Boxplot showing the distribution of upper airway volume measurements preoperatively and six months postoperatively. Each box represents the interquartile range (IQR), with the horizontal line indicating the median volume. Whiskers represent the minimum and maximum values within 1.5 × IQR, and any outliers are displayed as individual points. Airway volume is measured in cubic millimeters (mm3), allowing for visual comparison of central tendency and variability before and after the surgical intervention.
Cmtr 18 00039 sch001
Scheme 2. Scatter plot comparing upper airway volumes measured preoperatively and six months postoperatively for individual patients. Each dot represents a subject. The dashed line represents the line of identity (y = x), where points above the line indicate an increase in airway volume after surgery, and points below suggest a reduction. Volume is measured in cubic millimeters (mm3).
Scheme 2. Scatter plot comparing upper airway volumes measured preoperatively and six months postoperatively for individual patients. Each dot represents a subject. The dashed line represents the line of identity (y = x), where points above the line indicate an increase in airway volume after surgery, and points below suggest a reduction. Volume is measured in cubic millimeters (mm3).
Cmtr 18 00039 sch002
Scheme 3. Boxplot showing the distribution of upper airway cross-sectional area measured preoperatively and six months postoperatively. Each box represents the interquartile range (IQR), with the horizontal line indicating the median area. Whiskers denote minimum and maximum values within 1.5 × IQR. The measurements are expressed in square millimeters (mm2), allowing for visual comparison of airway area changes following surgery. Area is measured in square millimeters (mm2).
Scheme 3. Boxplot showing the distribution of upper airway cross-sectional area measured preoperatively and six months postoperatively. Each box represents the interquartile range (IQR), with the horizontal line indicating the median area. Whiskers denote minimum and maximum values within 1.5 × IQR. The measurements are expressed in square millimeters (mm2), allowing for visual comparison of airway area changes following surgery. Area is measured in square millimeters (mm2).
Cmtr 18 00039 sch003
Scheme 4. Scatter plot comparing upper airway cross-sectional area measured preoperatively and six months postoperatively. Each dot represents an individual patient. The dashed line indicates the line of identity (y = x), where points above the line reflect an increase in airway area after surgery, and points below suggest a reduction. Area values are reported in square millimeters (mm2). Taken preoperatively and six months postoperatively.
Scheme 4. Scatter plot comparing upper airway cross-sectional area measured preoperatively and six months postoperatively. Each dot represents an individual patient. The dashed line indicates the line of identity (y = x), where points above the line reflect an increase in airway area after surgery, and points below suggest a reduction. Area values are reported in square millimeters (mm2). Taken preoperatively and six months postoperatively.
Cmtr 18 00039 sch004
Scheme 5. Boxplot showing the distribution of linear measurements (Distance 1) taken preoperatively and six months postoperatively. Each box represents the interquartile range (IQR), with the horizontal line indicating the median value. Whiskers denote the minimum and maximum values within 1.5 × IQR. Measurements are expressed in millimeters (mm), illustrating the change in anatomical distance following the surgical procedure.
Scheme 5. Boxplot showing the distribution of linear measurements (Distance 1) taken preoperatively and six months postoperatively. Each box represents the interquartile range (IQR), with the horizontal line indicating the median value. Whiskers denote the minimum and maximum values within 1.5 × IQR. Measurements are expressed in millimeters (mm), illustrating the change in anatomical distance following the surgical procedure.
Cmtr 18 00039 sch005
Scheme 6. Scatter plot comparing linear anatomical measurements (Distance 1) obtained preoperatively and six months postoperatively. Each colored dot represents an individual patient. The dashed line indicates the line of identity (y = x); points below this line reflect a decrease in the measured distance after surgery, while points above indicate an increase. All measurements are expressed in millimeters (mm).
Scheme 6. Scatter plot comparing linear anatomical measurements (Distance 1) obtained preoperatively and six months postoperatively. Each colored dot represents an individual patient. The dashed line indicates the line of identity (y = x); points below this line reflect a decrease in the measured distance after surgery, while points above indicate an increase. All measurements are expressed in millimeters (mm).
Cmtr 18 00039 sch006
Scheme 7. Boxplot showing the distribution of linear anatomical measurements (Distance 2) taken preoperatively and six months postoperatively. The box represents the interquartile range (IQR), with the horizontal line indicating the median value. Whiskers show the minimum and maximum values within 1.5 × IQR. Measurements are expressed in millimeters (mm), highlighting the change in this specific anatomical distance following surgery.
Scheme 7. Boxplot showing the distribution of linear anatomical measurements (Distance 2) taken preoperatively and six months postoperatively. The box represents the interquartile range (IQR), with the horizontal line indicating the median value. Whiskers show the minimum and maximum values within 1.5 × IQR. Measurements are expressed in millimeters (mm), highlighting the change in this specific anatomical distance following surgery.
Cmtr 18 00039 sch007
Scheme 8. Scatter plot comparing linear anatomical measurements (Distance 2) obtained preoperatively and six months postoperatively. Each point represents an individual patient. The dashed diagonal line represents the line of identity (y = x), where points above the line indicate an increase in the measured distance after surgery, and points below reflect a reduction. Measurements are expressed in millimeters (mm).
Scheme 8. Scatter plot comparing linear anatomical measurements (Distance 2) obtained preoperatively and six months postoperatively. Each point represents an individual patient. The dashed diagonal line represents the line of identity (y = x), where points above the line indicate an increase in the measured distance after surgery, and points below reflect a reduction. Measurements are expressed in millimeters (mm).
Cmtr 18 00039 sch008
Scheme 9. Boxplot illustrating the distribution of linear anatomical measurements (Distance 3) taken preoperatively and six months postoperatively. Each box shows the interquartile range (IQR), with the horizontal line indicating the median value. Whiskers represent the minimum and maximum values within 1.5 × IQR. All measurements are expressed in millimeters (mm), allowing for comparison of Distance 3 before and after surgery.
Scheme 9. Boxplot illustrating the distribution of linear anatomical measurements (Distance 3) taken preoperatively and six months postoperatively. Each box shows the interquartile range (IQR), with the horizontal line indicating the median value. Whiskers represent the minimum and maximum values within 1.5 × IQR. All measurements are expressed in millimeters (mm), allowing for comparison of Distance 3 before and after surgery.
Cmtr 18 00039 sch009
Scheme 10. Scatter plot comparing Distance 3 measurements preoperatively and six months postoperatively. Each dot represents an individual subject. The diagonal dashed line indicates the line of equality (y = x), where values would lie if there were no changes between pre- and postoperative measurements. Dots above the line suggest an increase in Distance 3 postoperatively, while dots below indicate a reduction. All measurements are expressed in millimeters (mm).
Scheme 10. Scatter plot comparing Distance 3 measurements preoperatively and six months postoperatively. Each dot represents an individual subject. The diagonal dashed line indicates the line of equality (y = x), where values would lie if there were no changes between pre- and postoperative measurements. Dots above the line suggest an increase in Distance 3 postoperatively, while dots below indicate a reduction. All measurements are expressed in millimeters (mm).
Cmtr 18 00039 sch010
Scheme 11. Histogram of mandibular advancement measurements. This histogram displays the frequency distribution of mandibular advancement values among the subjects. Most individuals experienced advancements between 10 and 14 mm, with fewer cases in the lower ranges.
Scheme 11. Histogram of mandibular advancement measurements. This histogram displays the frequency distribution of mandibular advancement values among the subjects. Most individuals experienced advancements between 10 and 14 mm, with fewer cases in the lower ranges.
Cmtr 18 00039 sch011
Scheme 12. Histogram of hyoid bone advancement measurements. This histogram illustrates the distribution of hyoid bone advancement among subjects. The majority of cases showed advancement between 4 and 6 mm, with fewer instances of minimal (2–4 mm) and larger (10–12 mm) advancements.
Scheme 12. Histogram of hyoid bone advancement measurements. This histogram illustrates the distribution of hyoid bone advancement among subjects. The majority of cases showed advancement between 4 and 6 mm, with fewer instances of minimal (2–4 mm) and larger (10–12 mm) advancements.
Cmtr 18 00039 sch012
Scheme 13. Histogram of maxillary setback measured at the posterior nasal spine. This graph shows the distribution of maxillary movement values (mm) at the posterior nasal spine. Negative values indicate posterior repositioning (setback), while positive values represent anterior movement. Most cases clustered around minimal displacement, with a slight predominance of posterior movement. The dashed line at 0 indicates the baseline (no movement).
Scheme 13. Histogram of maxillary setback measured at the posterior nasal spine. This graph shows the distribution of maxillary movement values (mm) at the posterior nasal spine. Negative values indicate posterior repositioning (setback), while positive values represent anterior movement. Most cases clustered around minimal displacement, with a slight predominance of posterior movement. The dashed line at 0 indicates the baseline (no movement).
Cmtr 18 00039 sch013
Scheme 14. Histogram of vertical movement of the maxilla. This histogram displays the vertical displacement of the maxilla among subjects. Positive values indicate upward movement (impaction), while negative values represent downward movement (elongation). Most cases showed vertical changes close to the baseline (0 mm), with a slight tendency toward upward repositioning. The dashed line marks the reference position (no vertical movement).
Scheme 14. Histogram of vertical movement of the maxilla. This histogram displays the vertical displacement of the maxilla among subjects. Positive values indicate upward movement (impaction), while negative values represent downward movement (elongation). Most cases showed vertical changes close to the baseline (0 mm), with a slight tendency toward upward repositioning. The dashed line marks the reference position (no vertical movement).
Cmtr 18 00039 sch014
Scheme 15. Histogram of occlusal plane rotation. This histogram illustrates the distribution of occlusal plane rotation angles among the subjects. Most values range between 2° and 7°, indicating variability in the degree of rotation achieved. No subjects presented with rotation below 1° or above 8°, and the distribution suggests a slight concentration around 2–3°.
Scheme 15. Histogram of occlusal plane rotation. This histogram illustrates the distribution of occlusal plane rotation angles among the subjects. Most values range between 2° and 7°, indicating variability in the degree of rotation achieved. No subjects presented with rotation below 1° or above 8°, and the distribution suggests a slight concentration around 2–3°.
Cmtr 18 00039 sch015
Table 1. Characteristics of patients with type II pattern dentofacial deformity and/or long face who underwent orthognathic surgery involving maxillary setback and CCW rotation of the occlusal plane, February 2021 to January 2023.
Table 1. Characteristics of patients with type II pattern dentofacial deformity and/or long face who underwent orthognathic surgery involving maxillary setback and CCW rotation of the occlusal plane, February 2021 to January 2023.
Characteristicsn = 8n (%)
SexFemale7 (87.5)
Male1 (12.5)
AgeMean (standard deviation)29.4 (7.8)
Median (min-max)29 (20–45)
Table 2. Surgical movements of the maxillomandibular complex.
Table 2. Surgical movements of the maxillomandibular complex.
Characteristicsn = 8n (%)
Mandibular advancementMean (standard deviation)10.20 (4.17)
Median (min–max)12.15 (3.30; 13.70)
Interquartile range7.15; 13
Hyoid bone advancementMean (standard deviation)5.20 (2.79)
Median (min–max)4.70 (2.90; 11.70)
Interquartile range3.55; 5.25
Maxillary setback measured at the posterior nasal spineMean (standard deviation)−1.25 (2.67)
Median (min–max)−1.47 (−5.71; 3.46)
Interquartile range−2.63; 0.14
Maxillary setback measured at the anterior nasal spineMean (standard deviation)−1.81 (2.27)
Median (min–max)−0.83 (−5.93; 0.62)
Interquartile range−3.72; −0.17
Vertical movement of the maxillaMean (standard deviation)0.12 (2.38)
Median (min–max)0.50 (−3.26; 4.43)
Interquartile range−1.68; 1.06
Rotation of the occlusal planeMean (standard deviation)4.14 (1.90)
Median (min±max)3.99 (1.50; 7.12)
Interquartile range2.74; 5.50
Table 3. Airway volume and area, distance 1, distance 2 and distance 3 preoperatively and 6 months postoperatively.
Table 3. Airway volume and area, distance 1, distance 2 and distance 3 preoperatively and 6 months postoperatively.
Characteristics (n = 8)PreoperativePostoperative (6 Months)p Value
Airway volume 0.327
Mean (DP)12,080.50 (3217.95)12,825.38 (2481.60)
Median (IIQ)11,926 (9300–14,599)132,585.0 (11,562.50–14,924)
Airway area 0.050
Mean (DP)568.88 (137.81)682.75 (138.45)
Median (IIQ)581.50 (446.50–688.50)667.50 (581.50–784.50)
Distance 1 0.327
Mean (DP)22.61 (2.79)20.60 (3.03)
Median (IIQ)22.45 (20.95–24.95)19.55 (18.25–23)
Distance 2 0.058
Mean (DP)10.83 (2.44)12.51 (3.23)
Median (IIQ)10.85 (9.50–12.50)11.65 (9.70–15.50)
Distance 3 0.999
Mean (DP)13.34 (1.54)13.41 (1.35)
Median (IIQ)13.40 (11.85–14.50)12.90 (12.60–14.50)
Legend: SD: standard deviation; IIQ: interquartile range (Q1 and Q3). The Wilcoxon test.
Disclaimer/Publisher’s Note: The statements, opinions and data contained in all publications are solely those of the individual author(s) and contributor(s) and not of MDPI and/or the editor(s). MDPI and/or the editor(s) disclaim responsibility for any injury to people or property resulting from any ideas, methods, instructions or products referred to in the content.

Share and Cite

MDPI and ACS Style

de Lima, F.F.; De Carvalho, T.M.I.; Pulino, B.; Cerantula, C.; Correa, M.G.; Guerra, R.C. Evaluation of the Upper Airway in Class II Patients Undergoing Maxillary Setback and Counterclockwise Rotation in Orthognatic Surgery. Craniomaxillofac. Trauma Reconstr. 2025, 18, 39. https://doi.org/10.3390/cmtr18030039

AMA Style

de Lima FF, De Carvalho TMI, Pulino B, Cerantula C, Correa MG, Guerra RC. Evaluation of the Upper Airway in Class II Patients Undergoing Maxillary Setback and Counterclockwise Rotation in Orthognatic Surgery. Craniomaxillofacial Trauma & Reconstruction. 2025; 18(3):39. https://doi.org/10.3390/cmtr18030039

Chicago/Turabian Style

de Lima, Flávio Fidêncio, Tayná Mendes Inácio De Carvalho, Bianca Pulino, Camila Cerantula, Mônica Grazieli Correa, and Raphael Capelli Guerra. 2025. "Evaluation of the Upper Airway in Class II Patients Undergoing Maxillary Setback and Counterclockwise Rotation in Orthognatic Surgery" Craniomaxillofacial Trauma & Reconstruction 18, no. 3: 39. https://doi.org/10.3390/cmtr18030039

APA Style

de Lima, F. F., De Carvalho, T. M. I., Pulino, B., Cerantula, C., Correa, M. G., & Guerra, R. C. (2025). Evaluation of the Upper Airway in Class II Patients Undergoing Maxillary Setback and Counterclockwise Rotation in Orthognatic Surgery. Craniomaxillofacial Trauma & Reconstruction, 18(3), 39. https://doi.org/10.3390/cmtr18030039

Article Metrics

Back to TopTop