Factors Affecting Total Treatment Time in Patients Treated with Orthognathic Surgery Using the Surgery-First Approach: Multivariable Analysis Using 3D CT and Scanned Dental Casts
Abstract
1. Introduction
2. Methods
2.1. Study Design and Sample
2.2. Treatment Protocols
2.3. CBCT Imaging and Preoperative Planning
2.4. Study Variables
- (1)
- Demographic features
- (2)
- Surgical occlusion setup
2.5. Statistical Analysis
3. Results
4. Discussion
5. Conclusions
Author Contributions
Funding
Conflicts of Interest
References
- Beckwith, F.R.; Ackerman, R.J., Jr.; Cobb, C.M.; Tira, D.E. An evaluation of factors affecting duration of orthodontic treatment. Am. J. Orthod. Dentofac. Orthop. 1999, 115, 439–447. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Nagasaka, H.; Sugawara, J.; Kawamura, H.; Nanda, R. “Surgery first” skeletal class iii correction using the skeletal anchorage system. J. Clin. Orthod. 2009, 43, 97–105. [Google Scholar] [PubMed]
- Baek, S.H.; Ahn, H.W.; Kwon, Y.H.; Choi, J.Y. Surgery-first approach in skeletal class III malocclusion treated with 2-jaw surgery: Evaluation of surgical movement and postoperative orthodontic treatment. J. Craniofac. Surg. 2010, 21, 332–338. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Liou, E.J.; Chen, P.H.; Wang, Y.C.; Yu, C.C.; Huang, C.S.; Chen, Y.R. Surgery-first accelerated orthognathic surgery: Orthodontic guidelines and setup for model surgery. J. Oral. Maxillofac. Surg. 2011, 69, 771–780. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Liao, Y.F.; Chiu, Y.T.; Huang, C.S.; Ko, E.W.; Chen, Y.R. Presurgical orthodontics versus no presurgical orthodontics: Treatment outcome of surgical-orthodontic correction for skeletal class III open bite. Plast. Reconstr. Surg. 2010, 126, 2074–2083. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Jacobs, J.D.; Sinclair, P.M. Principles of orthodontic mechanics in orthognathic surgery cases. Am. J. Orthod. 1983, 84, 399–407. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Woods, M.; Wiesenfeld, D. A practical approach to presurgical orthodontic preparation. J. Clin. Orthod. 1998, 32, 350–358. [Google Scholar]
- Sabri, R. Orthodontic objectives in orthognathic surgery: State of the art today. World J. Orthod. 2006, 7, 177–191. [Google Scholar]
- Diaz, P.M.; Garcia, R.G.; Gias, L.N.; Aguirre-Jaime, A.; Perez, J.S.; de la Plata, M.M.; Navarro, E.V.; Gonzalez, F.J. Time used for orthodontic surgical treatment of dentofacial deformities in white patients. J. Oral. Maxillofac. Surg. 2010, 68, 88–92. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Liao, Y.F.; Lo, S.H. Surgical occlusion setup in correction of skeletal class iii deformity using surgery-first approach: Guidelines, characteristics and accuracy. Sci. Rep. 2018, 8, 11673. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Yu, H.B.; Mao, L.X.; Wang, X.D.; Fang, B.; Shen, S.G. The surgery-first approach in orthognathic surgery: A retrospective study of 50 cases. Int. J. Oral. Maxillofac. Surg. 2015, 44, 1463–1467. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Ko, E.W.; Hsu, S.S.; Hsieh, H.Y.; Wang, Y.C.; Huang, C.S.; Chen, Y.R. 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, 1469–1477. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Dowling, P.A.; Espeland, L.; Krogstad, O.; Stenvik, A.; Kelly, A. Duration of orthodontic treatment involving orthognathic surgery. Int. J. Adult Orthodon. Orthognath. Surg. 1999, 14, 146–152. [Google Scholar] [PubMed]
- Luther, F.; Morris, D.O.; Hart, C. Orthodontic preparation for orthognathic surgery: How long does it take and why? A retrospective study. Br. J. Oral. Maxillofac. Surg. 2003, 41, 401–406. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Luther, F.; Morris, D.O.; Karnezi, K. Orthodontic treatment following orthognathic surgery: How long does it take and why? A retrospective study. J. Oral. Maxillofac. Surg. 2007, 65, 1969–1976. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Kim, J.Y.; Jung, H.D.; Kim, S.Y.; Park, H.S.; Jung, Y.S. Postoperative stability for surgery-first approach using intraoral vertical ramus osteotomy: 12-month follow-up. Br. J. Oral. Maxillofac. Surg. 2014, 52, 539–544. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Min, B.K.; Choi, J.Y.; Baek, S.H. Comparison of treatment duration between conventional three-stage method and surgery-first approach in patients with skeletal class III malocclusion. J. Craniofac. Surg. 2014, 25, 1752–1756. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Park, H.M.; Lee, Y.K.; Choi, J.Y.; Baek, S.H. Maxillary incisor inclination of skeletal class III patients treated with extraction of the upper first premolars and two-jaw surgery: Conventional orthognathic surgery vs surgery-first approach. Angl. Orthod. 2014, 84, 720–729. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Ko, E.W.; Lin, S.C.; Chen, Y.R.; Huang, C.S. Skeletal and dental variables related to the stability of orthognathic surgery in skeletal class iii malocclusion with a surgery-first approach. J. Oral. Maxillofac. Surg. 2013, 71, e215–e223. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Villegas, C.; Uribe, F.; Sugawara, J.; Nanda, R. Expedited correction of significant dentofacial asymmetry using a “surgery first” approach. J. Clin. Orthod. 2010, 44, 97–103. [Google Scholar]
- Oh, J.Y.; Park, J.W.; Baek, S.H. Surgery-first approach in class iii open-bite. J. Craniofac. Surg. 2012, 23, e283–e287. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Wang, Y.C.; Ko, E.W.; Huang, C.S.; Chen, Y.R.; Takano-Yamamoto, T. Comparison of transverse dimensional changes in surgical skeletal class iii patients with and without presurgical orthodontics. J. Oral. Maxillofac. Surg. 2010, 68, 1807–1812. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Gandedkar, N.H.; Chng, C.K.; Tan, W. Surgery-first orthognathic approach case series: Salient features and guidelines. J. Orthod. Sci. 2016, 5, 35–42. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Villegas, C.; Janakiraman, N.; Uribe, F.; Nanda, R. Rotation of the maxillomandibular complex to enhance esthetics using a “surgery first” approach. J. Clin. Orthod. 2012, 46, 85–91. [Google Scholar] [PubMed]
Variables | N (%) or Mean ± SD | Treatment Time (Months) | p-Value |
---|---|---|---|
Age (years) | 22.0 ± 3.4 | 15.0 ± 8.0 | |
Sex | 0.147 | ||
Female | 28 (56.0%) | 13.1 ± 6.5 | |
Male | 22 (44.0%) | 17.3 ± 9.2 | |
Facial asymmetry | 0.938 | ||
Asymmetry | 28 (56.0%) | 15.1 ± 8.3 | |
Non-asymmetry | 22 (44.0%) | 14.7 ± 7.7 | |
Preoperative anterior open bite | 0.021 * | ||
No | 41 (82.0%) | 14.1 ± 8.4 | |
Yes | 9 (18.0%) | 19.0 ± 4.4 | |
Maxillary canting (mm) | 0.884 | ||
Mild (<2) | 34 (68.0%) | 14.7 ± 7.3 | |
Severe (≥2) | 16 (32.0%) | 15.5 ± 9.5 | |
Maxilla ALD (mm) | |||
Spacing (<0) | 8 (16.0%) | 14.1 ± 3.9 | 0.209 (1 vs. 2) |
Mild crowded (<3, ≥0) | 32 (64.0%) | 12.5 ± 6.5 | 0.009 ** (1 vs. 3) |
Severe Crowded (≥3) | 10 (20.0%) | 23.7 ± 9.2 | 0.001 ** (2 vs. 3) |
Mandible ALD (mm) | |||
Spacing (<0) | 5 (10.0%) | 18.6 ± 13.8 | 0.266 (1 vs. 2) |
Mild crowded (<3, ≥0) | 32 (64.0%) | 12.9 ± 6.9 | 0.387 (1 vs. 3) |
Severe crowded (≥3) | 13 (26.0%) | 18.6 ± 6.5 | 0.009 ** (2 vs. 3) |
Curve of Spee (mm) | 0.126 | ||
Mild (<2) | 13 (26.0%) | 12.2 ± 6.4 | |
Severe (≥2) | 37 (74.0%) | 15.9 ± 8.4 | |
Total ALD (mm) | 2.5 ± 2.3 | <0.001 ** | |
Non-extraction | 41 (82.0%) | 12.8 ± 6.2 | |
Extraction | 9 (18.0%) | 25.0 ± 7.8 | |
Preoperative overbite (mm) | −1.8 ± 2.4 | ||
Preoperative overjet (mm) | 0.53 ± 1.6 | ||
IMW difference (mm) | 5.7 ± 2.6 | ||
ICW difference (mm) | 8.9 ± 2.4 |
Variables | N (%) or Mean ± SD | Treatment Time (Months) | p-Value |
---|---|---|---|
Anteroposterior relationship | |||
Postoperative overjet (mm) | 3.6 ± 1.6 | 0.378 | |
Mild (>4) | 31 (62.0%) | 14.6 ± 9.0 | |
Severe (≤4) | 19 (38.0%) | 15.6 ± 6.2 | |
Postoperative molar key | |||
Class I | 25 (50.0%) | 10.8 ± 5.2 | 0.002 ** (1 vs. 2) |
Class II | 15 (30.0%) | 16.6 ± 6.3 | <0.001 ** (1 vs. 3) |
Class III | 10 (20.0%) | 23.0 ± 9.5 | 0.062 (2 vs. 3) |
Vertical relationship | |||
Postoperative overbite (mm) | 0.9 ± 1.6 | ||
Postoperative anterior open bite | 0.007 ** | ||
No | 32 (64.0%) | 12.8 ± 6.8 | |
Yes | 18 (36.0%) | 18.9 ± 8.7 | |
No. of contact points | 4.3 ± 1.4 | ||
Contact type | |||
Bilateral anterior and posterior (>4 points) | 18 (36.0%) | 8.6 ± 3.4 | <0.001 ** (1 vs. 2) |
Bilateral anterior and posterior (≤4 points) | 20 (40.0%) | 18.3 ± 8.4 | <0.001 ** (1 vs. 3) |
Bilateral posterior | 12 (24.0%) | 19.1 ± 6.3 | 0.470 (2 vs. 3) |
Transverse relationship | |||
Postoperative dental midline | <0.001 ** | ||
Non-deviated | 26 (52.0%) | 11.1 ± 5.6 | |
Deviated | 24 (48.0%) | 19.2 ± 8.2 | |
Maxillary expansion | 0.035 * | ||
Not performed | 38 (76.0%) | 13.7 ± 7.8 | |
Performed | 12 (24.0%) | 18.9 ± 7.7 |
Model (Adjusted R2 = 0.79) | Unstandardized Coefficient | Standardized Coefficient | Collinearity Statistics | ||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
B | SE | Beta | t | p | Tolerance | VIF | |
(constant) | 21.21 | 3.37 | 6.29 | <0.001 ** | |||
No. of contact points | −2.22 | 0.64 | −0.39 | −3.46 | 0.001 ** | 0.66 | 1.53 |
No. of extracted teeth | 2.87 | 0.78 | 0.38 | 3.67 | 0.001 ** | 0.78 | 1.29 |
Postoperative midline deviation (yes/no) | 4.50 | 1.56 | 0.29 | 2.88 | 0.006 ** | 0.82 | 1.21 |
© 2020 by the authors. Licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland. This article is an open access article distributed under the terms and conditions of the Creative Commons Attribution (CC BY) license (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/).
Share and Cite
Kim, J.-Y.; Park, J.H.; Jung, H.-D.; Jung, Y.-S. Factors Affecting Total Treatment Time in Patients Treated with Orthognathic Surgery Using the Surgery-First Approach: Multivariable Analysis Using 3D CT and Scanned Dental Casts. J. Clin. Med. 2020, 9, 641. https://doi.org/10.3390/jcm9030641
Kim J-Y, Park JH, Jung H-D, Jung Y-S. Factors Affecting Total Treatment Time in Patients Treated with Orthognathic Surgery Using the Surgery-First Approach: Multivariable Analysis Using 3D CT and Scanned Dental Casts. Journal of Clinical Medicine. 2020; 9(3):641. https://doi.org/10.3390/jcm9030641
Chicago/Turabian StyleKim, Jun-Young, Jin Hoo Park, Hwi-Dong Jung, and Young-Soo Jung. 2020. "Factors Affecting Total Treatment Time in Patients Treated with Orthognathic Surgery Using the Surgery-First Approach: Multivariable Analysis Using 3D CT and Scanned Dental Casts" Journal of Clinical Medicine 9, no. 3: 641. https://doi.org/10.3390/jcm9030641
APA StyleKim, J.-Y., Park, J. H., Jung, H.-D., & Jung, Y.-S. (2020). Factors Affecting Total Treatment Time in Patients Treated with Orthognathic Surgery Using the Surgery-First Approach: Multivariable Analysis Using 3D CT and Scanned Dental Casts. Journal of Clinical Medicine, 9(3), 641. https://doi.org/10.3390/jcm9030641