Skip to main content

Lund University Publications

LUND UNIVERSITY LIBRARIES

Treatment outcomes and patient-reported quality of life after orthognathic surgery with computer-assisted 2- or 3-dimensional planning : A randomized double-blind active-controlled clinical trial

Bengtsson, Martin LU orcid ; Wall, Gert ; Larsson, Pernilla ; Becktor, Jonas P and Rasmusson, Lars (2018) In American Journal of Orthodontics and Dentofacial Orthopedics 153(6). p.786-796
Abstract

INTRODUCTION: Thorough treatment planning is essential for a good clinical outcome in orthognathic treatment. The planning is often digital. Both 2-dimensional (2D) and 3-dimensional (3D) software options are available. The aim of this randomized 2-arm parallel double-blinded active-controlled clinical trial was to compare the outcomes of computer-based 2D and 3D planning techniques according to patient-reported health related quality of life. The hypothesis was that a 3D technique would give a better treatment outcome compared with a 2D technique.

METHODS: Orthognathic treatment for 62 subjects, aged 18 to 28 years, with severe Class III malocclusion was planned with both 2D and 3D techniques. After treatment planning but before... (More)

INTRODUCTION: Thorough treatment planning is essential for a good clinical outcome in orthognathic treatment. The planning is often digital. Both 2-dimensional (2D) and 3-dimensional (3D) software options are available. The aim of this randomized 2-arm parallel double-blinded active-controlled clinical trial was to compare the outcomes of computer-based 2D and 3D planning techniques according to patient-reported health related quality of life. The hypothesis was that a 3D technique would give a better treatment outcome compared with a 2D technique.

METHODS: Orthognathic treatment for 62 subjects, aged 18 to 28 years, with severe Class III malocclusion was planned with both 2D and 3D techniques. After treatment planning but before surgery, the patients were randomly allocated via blind collection of 1 enveloped card for each subject in a 1:1 ratio to the test (3D) or the control (2D) group. Thus, the intervention was according to which planning technique was used. The primary outcome was patient-reported outcome measures. The secondary outcome was relationship between patient-reported outcome measures and cephalometric accuracy. Questionnaires on the patient's health-related quality of life (HRQoL) were distributed preoperatively and 12 months after surgical treatment. The questionnaires were coded, meaning blinding throughout the analysis. Differences between groups were tested with the Fisher permutation test. The HRQoL was also compared with measurements of cephalometric accuracy for the 2 groups.

RESULTS: Three subjects were lost to clinical follow-up, leaving 57 included. Of these, 55 subjects completed the questionnaires, 28 in the 2D and 27 in the 3D groups. No statistically significant difference regarding HRQoL was found between the studied planning techniques: the Oral Health Impact Profile total showed -3.69 (95% confidence interval, -19.68 to 12.30). Consistent results on HRQoL and cephalometric accuracy showed a difference between pretreatment and posttreatment that increased in both groups but to a higher level in the 3D group. A difference between pretreatment and posttreatment HRQoL was shown for both groups, indicating increased quality of life after treatment. This supports recent findings comparing 3D and 2D planning techniques. No serious harm was observed during the study.

CONCLUSIONS: Improvements of HRQoL were shown after treatment independent of which planning technique, 2D or 3D, was used. No statistically significant difference was found between the planning techniques.

REGISTRATION: This trial was not registered.

PROTOCOL: The protocol was not published before trial commencement.

FUNDING: This project was supported by personal grants to Martin Bengtsson from the Scandinavian Association of Oral and Maxillofacial Surgeons (25000 SEK), the Southern Region of the Swedish Dental Association (50000 SEK), and the Swedish Association of Oral and Maxillofacial Surgeons (25000 SEK). The sponsors had no influence on the study design, analysis of the data, or the writing of the article.

(Less)
Please use this url to cite or link to this publication:
author
; ; ; and
publishing date
type
Contribution to journal
publication status
published
subject
keywords
Adolescent, Adult, Cephalometry, Double-Blind Method, Female, Humans, Imaging, Three-Dimensional, Male, Orthognathic Surgical Procedures/methods, Patient Care Planning, Patient Reported Outcome Measures, Prospective Studies, Quality of Life, Surgery, Computer-Assisted, Treatment Outcome, Young Adult
in
American Journal of Orthodontics and Dentofacial Orthopedics
volume
153
issue
6
pages
786 - 796
publisher
Elsevier
external identifiers
  • pmid:29853236
  • scopus:85047626457
ISSN
1097-6752
DOI
10.1016/j.ajodo.2017.12.008
language
English
LU publication?
no
additional info
Copyright © 2018 American Association of Orthodontists. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.
id
3cf5c52e-5b6a-4c2f-8d05-1ab34bd94629
date added to LUP
2021-11-09 11:12:57
date last changed
2024-03-23 13:38:52
@article{3cf5c52e-5b6a-4c2f-8d05-1ab34bd94629,
  abstract     = {{<p>INTRODUCTION: Thorough treatment planning is essential for a good clinical outcome in orthognathic treatment. The planning is often digital. Both 2-dimensional (2D) and 3-dimensional (3D) software options are available. The aim of this randomized 2-arm parallel double-blinded active-controlled clinical trial was to compare the outcomes of computer-based 2D and 3D planning techniques according to patient-reported health related quality of life. The hypothesis was that a 3D technique would give a better treatment outcome compared with a 2D technique.</p><p>METHODS: Orthognathic treatment for 62 subjects, aged 18 to 28 years, with severe Class III malocclusion was planned with both 2D and 3D techniques. After treatment planning but before surgery, the patients were randomly allocated via blind collection of 1 enveloped card for each subject in a 1:1 ratio to the test (3D) or the control (2D) group. Thus, the intervention was according to which planning technique was used. The primary outcome was patient-reported outcome measures. The secondary outcome was relationship between patient-reported outcome measures and cephalometric accuracy. Questionnaires on the patient's health-related quality of life (HRQoL) were distributed preoperatively and 12 months after surgical treatment. The questionnaires were coded, meaning blinding throughout the analysis. Differences between groups were tested with the Fisher permutation test. The HRQoL was also compared with measurements of cephalometric accuracy for the 2 groups.</p><p>RESULTS: Three subjects were lost to clinical follow-up, leaving 57 included. Of these, 55 subjects completed the questionnaires, 28 in the 2D and 27 in the 3D groups. No statistically significant difference regarding HRQoL was found between the studied planning techniques: the Oral Health Impact Profile total showed -3.69 (95% confidence interval, -19.68 to 12.30). Consistent results on HRQoL and cephalometric accuracy showed a difference between pretreatment and posttreatment that increased in both groups but to a higher level in the 3D group. A difference between pretreatment and posttreatment HRQoL was shown for both groups, indicating increased quality of life after treatment. This supports recent findings comparing 3D and 2D planning techniques. No serious harm was observed during the study.</p><p>CONCLUSIONS: Improvements of HRQoL were shown after treatment independent of which planning technique, 2D or 3D, was used. No statistically significant difference was found between the planning techniques.</p><p>REGISTRATION: This trial was not registered.</p><p>PROTOCOL: The protocol was not published before trial commencement.</p><p>FUNDING: This project was supported by personal grants to Martin Bengtsson from the Scandinavian Association of Oral and Maxillofacial Surgeons (25000 SEK), the Southern Region of the Swedish Dental Association (50000 SEK), and the Swedish Association of Oral and Maxillofacial Surgeons (25000 SEK). The sponsors had no influence on the study design, analysis of the data, or the writing of the article.</p>}},
  author       = {{Bengtsson, Martin and Wall, Gert and Larsson, Pernilla and Becktor, Jonas P and Rasmusson, Lars}},
  issn         = {{1097-6752}},
  keywords     = {{Adolescent; Adult; Cephalometry; Double-Blind Method; Female; Humans; Imaging, Three-Dimensional; Male; Orthognathic Surgical Procedures/methods; Patient Care Planning; Patient Reported Outcome Measures; Prospective Studies; Quality of Life; Surgery, Computer-Assisted; Treatment Outcome; Young Adult}},
  language     = {{eng}},
  number       = {{6}},
  pages        = {{786--796}},
  publisher    = {{Elsevier}},
  series       = {{American Journal of Orthodontics and Dentofacial Orthopedics}},
  title        = {{Treatment outcomes and patient-reported quality of life after orthognathic surgery with computer-assisted 2- or 3-dimensional planning : A randomized double-blind active-controlled clinical trial}},
  url          = {{http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.ajodo.2017.12.008}},
  doi          = {{10.1016/j.ajodo.2017.12.008}},
  volume       = {{153}},
  year         = {{2018}},
}