Advanced

Treatment outcome in orthognathic surgery-A prospective randomized blinded case-controlled comparison of planning accuracy in computer-assisted two- and three-dimensional planning techniques (part II)

Bengtsson, Martin; Wall, Gert; Greiff, Lennart LU and Rasmusson, Lars (2017) In Journal of Cranio-Maxillofacial Surgery 45(9). p.1419-1424
Abstract

Purpose: The aim of the present study was to compare the accuracy of two-dimensional (2D) and three-dimensional (3D) prediction methods. The hypothesis was that a 3D technique would give a more accurate outcome of the postoperative result. Material and methods: Patients with severe class III occlusion were included and planed with both a 2D and 3D prediction technique. They were there after randomly subdivided into a control (2D) and test (3D) group and treated according to the technique randomized for. Cephalometric measurements from 2D and 3D predictions were compared with 12-month follow-up respectively. Together with an analysis of tracing error, placements of 3580 cephalometric markers, 2460 measurements, 680 intra-individual... (More)

Purpose: The aim of the present study was to compare the accuracy of two-dimensional (2D) and three-dimensional (3D) prediction methods. The hypothesis was that a 3D technique would give a more accurate outcome of the postoperative result. Material and methods: Patients with severe class III occlusion were included and planed with both a 2D and 3D prediction technique. They were there after randomly subdivided into a control (2D) and test (3D) group and treated according to the technique randomized for. Cephalometric measurements from 2D and 3D predictions were compared with 12-month follow-up respectively. Together with an analysis of tracing error, placements of 3580 cephalometric markers, 2460 measurements, 680 intra-individual analyses and 1200 preop/postop comparisons were performed in 57 individuals. Results: Statistically significant differences for accuracy between the two groups were seen for 11/NSL-112/NSL2 and for A-A2 (p < 0.05). Both groups showed a high level of accuracy for SNA and SNB. The test group also showed a relatively high level of accuracy for 11/NSL and for the A-point. No prediction method achieves a perfect accuracy. As expected from this, measuring accuracy within each group showed statistically significant difference for all markers and cephalometric measurements (p < 0.001). Mandibular markers showed greater differences than maxillary markers. Conclusion: The present study indicates an equal high accuracy in predicting facial outcome for both studied techniques. However, in patients with asymmetry the three-dimensional technique has an obvious advantage.

(Less)
Please use this url to cite or link to this publication:
author
publishing date
type
Contribution to journal
publication status
published
subject
keywords
Cephalometry, Computer-aided surgical simulation, Dentofacial deformity, Orthognathic surgery, Randomized controlled trial, Virtual surgical planning
in
Journal of Cranio-Maxillofacial Surgery
volume
45
issue
9
pages
1419 - 1424
external identifiers
  • scopus:85027106230
ISSN
1010-5182
DOI
10.1016/j.jcms.2017.07.001
language
English
LU publication?
no
id
d5f11bc5-5f7e-4ee6-9255-477c68f7852c
date added to LUP
2017-09-04 16:26:59
date last changed
2017-09-05 03:00:03
@article{d5f11bc5-5f7e-4ee6-9255-477c68f7852c,
  abstract     = {<p>Purpose: The aim of the present study was to compare the accuracy of two-dimensional (2D) and three-dimensional (3D) prediction methods. The hypothesis was that a 3D technique would give a more accurate outcome of the postoperative result. Material and methods: Patients with severe class III occlusion were included and planed with both a 2D and 3D prediction technique. They were there after randomly subdivided into a control (2D) and test (3D) group and treated according to the technique randomized for. Cephalometric measurements from 2D and 3D predictions were compared with 12-month follow-up respectively. Together with an analysis of tracing error, placements of 3580 cephalometric markers, 2460 measurements, 680 intra-individual analyses and 1200 preop/postop comparisons were performed in 57 individuals. Results: Statistically significant differences for accuracy between the two groups were seen for 11/NSL-112/NSL2 and for A-A2 (p &lt; 0.05). Both groups showed a high level of accuracy for SNA and SNB. The test group also showed a relatively high level of accuracy for 11/NSL and for the A-point. No prediction method achieves a perfect accuracy. As expected from this, measuring accuracy within each group showed statistically significant difference for all markers and cephalometric measurements (p &lt; 0.001). Mandibular markers showed greater differences than maxillary markers. Conclusion: The present study indicates an equal high accuracy in predicting facial outcome for both studied techniques. However, in patients with asymmetry the three-dimensional technique has an obvious advantage.</p>},
  author       = {Bengtsson, Martin and Wall, Gert and Greiff, Lennart and Rasmusson, Lars},
  issn         = {1010-5182},
  keyword      = {Cephalometry,Computer-aided surgical simulation,Dentofacial deformity,Orthognathic surgery,Randomized controlled trial,Virtual surgical planning},
  language     = {eng},
  number       = {9},
  pages        = {1419--1424},
  series       = {Journal of Cranio-Maxillofacial Surgery},
  title        = {Treatment outcome in orthognathic surgery-A prospective randomized blinded case-controlled comparison of planning accuracy in computer-assisted two- and three-dimensional planning techniques (part II)},
  url          = {http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jcms.2017.07.001},
  volume       = {45},
  year         = {2017},
}