medigraphic.com
ISSN 2395-9215 (Print)
Órgano Oficial de Difusión de la Facultad de Odontología de la UNAM

2013, Number 1

<< Back Next >>

Rev Mex Ortodon 2013; 1 (1)

Usefulness of tridimensional cephalometry in diagnosis and surgical treatment planning when compared to bidimensional cephalometry in patients with craniofacial anomalies

López MY, Yudovich BM, Quiroz BJC, García LS, Gual SA, Carrillo MR

Language: Spanish
References: 27
Page: 13-26
PDF size: 326.63 Kb.


ABSTRACT

The aim of this study was to compare cephalometric results of three and two dimensional surgical predictions in patients that underwent orthognatic surgery. The study involved two groups of 15 to 30 years old patients with craniofacial anomalies. The first group of patients had orthognatic surgery from April 2004 to January 2005. Pre and post-surgical lateral cephalometric measurements were done using Simplant program, (version CMF 8.2 of Materialise, NV, Belgium). The second group of patients had orthognatic surgery from January 1999 to January 2004. Pre and post-surgical lateral cephalometric measurements were done manually. The results of this study showed a more accurate surgical prediction with the Simplant program. In group I (three-dimensional cephalometric measurement) there was not a statistically significant difference between the prediction measurements done before the surgery and those compared with the post-surgically result. In group II, (two-dimensional cephalometric measurements) on the surgical predictions done previously by hand using cut and paste mobiles taken from the patient’s Hospital records, we observed that in the SNA angle and the maxillary length measurements there was a statistically difference (p ‹ .05). Therefore we conclude that the three-dimensional method is more accurate than the two-dimensional method in planning surgical orthognatic procedures.


REFERENCES

  1. Enlow DH. Crecimiento maxilofacial. 3ª. ed. Interamericana, McGraw-Hill, México; 1990.

  2. Moss ML, Saletijin L. The capsular matrix. Am J Orthod Dentofac Orthop. 1969; 56: 474-479.

  3. Enlow DH. Structural and functional “Balance during craniofacial growth”. In: State of the art. Essence of the Science. Ed. Graber L. W. Mosby; 1986.

  4. Echarri LP. Diagnóstico en ortodoncia: estudio multidisciplinario. Ed. Quintessence, Barcelona; 1998.

  5. Udupa J, Tian J, Hemmy D. A pentium personal computer-based craniofacial three-dimesional imaging and analysis system. J Craniofac Surg. 1997; 8: 333-339.

  6. Da Silveira A, Daw J, Kusnoto B, Evans, Cohen M. Craniofacial applications of three-.dimensional laser surface scanning. J Craniofac Surg. 2003; 14: 449-454.

  7. Kuroda T, Motohashi N, Tominaga R. Three-dimensional dental cast analyzing system using laser scanning. Am J Orthod Dentofac Orthop. 1996; 110: 365-369.

  8. Braumann B, Keilig L, Bourauel C. Three-dimensional analysis of morphological changes in the maxilla of patients with cleft lip and palate. Cleft Palate Craniofac J. 2002; 39: 1-11.

  9. Müller A, Krishnan KG, Uhl E, Mast G. The application of rapid prototyping techniques in cranial reconstruction and preoperative planning in neurosurgery. J Craniofac Surg. 2003; 14: 899-914.

  10. Chang PS, Parker TH, Patrick CW Jr, Miller MJ. The accuracy of stereolithography in planning craniofacial bone replacement. J Craniofac Surg. 2003; 14: 164-170.

  11. Hurwitz DJ, Ashby ER, Llull R. Computer assisted anthropometry for outcome assessment of cleft lip. Plast Reconstr Surg. 1999; 103: 1608-1623.

  12. Dean D, Min K, Bond A. Computer aided desing of large-format prefabricated cranial plates. J Craniofac Surg. 2003; 14: 819-832.

  13. Arridge S. Moss JP, Linney AD. Three dimensional digitization of the face and skull. J Maxillofac Surg. 1985; 13: 136-146.

  14. http://www.simplant.com

  15. http: //www.materialise.com

  16. Prospil OA. Reliability and feasibility of prediction tracing in orthognathic surgery. J Cranio Max Fac Surg. 1987; 15: 79-83.

  17. Kragskov J, Bosch C, Gyldensted C, Sindet-Pedersen S. Comparison of reliability of craniofacial anatomic landmarks based on cephalometric and three-dimensional CT scans. Cleft Palate Craniofac J. 1997; 34: 111-115.

  18. Louis PJ, Austin RB, Waite PD, Matheus CS. Soft tissue changes of the upper lip associated with maxillary advancement in obstructive sleep apnea patients. J Oral Maxillofac Surg. 2001; 59: 151-156.

  19. Cousley J, Grant E, Kindelan DJ. The validity of computerized orthognathic predictions. Am J Orthod Dentofac Orthop. 2003; 30: 149-154.

  20. Smith JD, Thomas PN, Proffit WR. A comparison of current prediction imaging programs. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop. 2004; 125: 524-536.

  21. Adams GL, Gansky SA, Millar AJ, Harrell WE Jr, Hatcher DC. Comparison between traditional 2-2-dimensional cephalometry and a 3-dimensional approach on human dry skulls. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop. 2004; 126: 397-408.

  22. Stanton G. Primer of biostatistics: the program. McGrawHill; 1992.

  23. Ricketts RM. Cephalometrics analysis and synthesis. Am J Orthod. 1961; 31: 141-156.

  24. Legan HL, Burstone CJ, Murphy GA. Soft tissue cephalometric analysis for orthognatic surgery. J Oral Surg. 1980; 38: 744-751.

  25. McCarthy. Plastic surgery. W.B. Saunders Company. Vols. 1, 2, 4; 1990.

  26. James WJ, Slabbekoorn MA, Edgin WA, Hardin CK. Correction of congenital malar hypoplasia using stereolithography for presurgical planning. J Oral Maxillofac Surg. 1998; 56: 517-521.

  27. Stoker NG, Mankovich NJ, Valentino D. Stereolithographic models for surgical planning: preliminary report. J Oral Maxillofac Surg. 1992; 50: 466-471.




2020     |     www.medigraphic.com