Journals / Turkish Journal of Orthodontics / 2018 / Cilt: 31 - Sayı: 4

Comparison of the Accuracy of Manual and Digital Cephalometric Prediction Methods in Orthognathic Surgical Planning: A Pilot Study

Pages
133–138
DOI
—
🏛️Bibliographic metadata and full text access for this article are provided via DergiPark.
DergiPark Record ↗
✨

AI Summary & Key Takeaways

AI Insight
⚡ TL;DR(Too Long; Didn't Read)

Dental predictions were inaccu-rate in both methods due to the effects of intermaxillary elastics, but both methods yielded similar predictions for skeletal parameters.The impact of applying strong elastics for postoperative intermaxillary fixation should be considered when making surgical predic-tions.

📌 3 Key Takeaways

🎯
Objective & Hypothesis:Objective: To compare and evaluate the reliability of manual and digital cephalometric prediction methods in orthognathic surgicalplanningMethods: Ten adults (5 females and 5 males) with skeletal class III malocclusion were included.
📊
Key Findings & Data:The mean patient age was 21.97 years.Pre- to postoperative changes were evaluated using paired t-test.
💡
Conclusion & Impact:Dental predictions were inaccu-rate in both methods due to the effects of intermaxillary elastics, but both methods yielded similar predictions for skeletal parameters.The impact of applying strong elastics for postoperative intermaxillary fixation should be considered when making surgical predic-tions.
🔬Design:Research Article
📍Scope:Comprehensive Sample
⚙️Variables:Domain Parameters

Özet

Objective: To compare and evaluate the reliability of manual and digital cephalometric prediction methods in orthognathic surgicalplanningMethods: Ten adults (5 females and 5 males) with skeletal class III malocclusion were included. The mean patient age was 21.97 years.Pre- to postoperative changes were evaluated using paired t-test. Manual surgical predictions made by tracing on acetate paperand digital predictions made using computer software were compared with actual postoperative values using intraclass correlationcoefficient and root mean square.Results: Statistically significant changes were observed in SNA, SNB, ANB, U1i-FH, and Nperp-A following bimaxillary orthognathicsurgery (p<0.001). Postoperative changes in Co-A and Nperp-Pg were statistically significant (p<0.05). Comparison of manual and dig-ital surgical predictions with actual postoperative values revealed that overbite and overjet showed the lowest agreements. Manualpredictions were less accurate for points that were difficult to distinguish (Co and U6). Skeletal predictions were more accurate thandental predictions.Conclusion: Parameters with low reproducibility (Co and U6) decrease the reliability of predictions. Dental predictions were inaccu-rate in both methods due to the effects of intermaxillary elastics, but both methods yielded similar predictions for skeletal parameters.The impact of applying strong elastics for postoperative intermaxillary fixation should be considered when making surgical predic-tions.

🔖

Cite This Article

ARSLAN, C., DEMİRALP, A. T. A., MEMİKOĞLU, T. U. T., ARSLAN, E. M., BAŞPINAR, E. (2018). Comparison of the Accuracy of Manual and Digital Cephalometric Prediction Methods in Orthognathic Surgical Planning: A Pilot Study. Turkish Journal of Orthodontics, Cilt: 31 - Sayı: 4, 133–138. https://ajindex.com/articles/375093

📄 Full Text PDF Viewer

📄

PDF görüntüleyici hazırlanıyor...

References (7)

  1. Cohen MI. Mandibular prognathism. Am J Orthod 1965; 51: 368-79. [CrossRef ] McNeill RW, Proffit WR, White RP. Cephalometric prediction for or- thodontic surgery. Angle Orthod 1972; 42: 154-64. Henderson D. The assessment, management of bony deformities of the middle, lower face. Br J Plast Surg 1974; 66: 378-96. [CrossRef ] Worms FW, Isaacson RJ, Spiedel TM. Surgical orthodontic treatment planning: Profile analysis and mandibular surgery. Angle Orthod 1976; 46: 1-25.
  2. Hohl TH, Wolford LM, Epker BN, Fonseca RJ. Craniofacial osteoto- mies: A photocephalometric technique for the prediction and eval- uation of tissue changes. Angle Orthod 1978; 48: 114-25.
  3. Fish LC, Epker BN. Surgical-orthodontic cephalometric prediction tracing. J Clin Orthod 1980; 14: 36-52.
  4. Bench RW, Gugino CF, Hilgers JJ. Bioprogressive therapy: Part 2-principles of the therapy. J Clin Ortodod 1977; 11: 661-8.
  5. Wolford LM, Hilliard FW, Dugan DJ. Surgical treatment objective. A systematic approach to the prediction tracing. 1985.
  6. Mosby Year Book, St Louis, pp 54-74.
  7. Altug AT, Bolatoglu H, Toygar Memikoglu U. Facial soft tissue profile following bimaxillary orthognathic surgery. Angle Orthod 2008; 78: 50-7. [CrossRef ] Bhatia SN, Sowray JH. A computer-aided design for orthognathic surgery. Br J Oral Maxillofac Surg 1984; 22: 237-53. [CrossRef ] Harradine NWT, Burnie DJ. Computerized prediction of the re- sults of orthognathic surgery. J Maxillofac Surg 1985; 13: 245-9. [CrossRef ] Walters H, Walters HD. Computerized planning of maxillofacial os- teotomies: The program and its clinical applications. Br J Oral Maxil- lofac Surg 1989; 24: 178-89. [CrossRef ] Kaipatur N, Al-Thomali Y, Flores-Mir C. Accuracy of computer pro- grams in predicting orthognathic surgery hard tissue response. J Oral Maxillofac Surg 2009; 67: 1628-39. [CrossRef ] Pektas ZO, Kircelli BH, Cilasun U, Uckan S. The accuracy of comput- er-assisted surgical planning in soft tissue prediction following or- thognathic surgery. Int J Med Robot 2007; 3: 64-71. [CrossRef ] Sinclair PM, Kilpelainen P, Phillips C, White RP Jr, Rogers L, Sarver DM. The accuracy of video imaging in orthognathic surgery. Am J Orthod Dentofac Orthop 1995; 107: 177-85. [CrossRef ] Harradine NW, Birnie DJ. Computerized prediction of the results of orthognathic surgery. J Maxillofac Surg 1985; 13: 245-9. [CrossRef ] Loh S, Heng JK, Ward-Booth P, Winchester L, McDonald F. A ra- diographic analysis of computer prediction in junction with or- thognathic surgery.