Article Sidebar
Views pdf: 62
SOFT TISSUE MEASUREMENTS ACQUIRED USING THREE-DIMENSIONAL METHODS IN ORTHOGNATHIC SURGERY PATIENTS
Main Article Content
Abstract
Introduction: Orthognathic surgery aims to achieve aesthetic improvements not only for skeletal structures but also for facial soft tissues. Modern data acquisition methods, such as computed tomography (CT/CBCT) and face scanners (FS), provide advantages over conventional 2D photography in reconstructing soft-tissue morphology. Objective: This study aims to compare facial soft tissue reconstruction obtained from FS and CT in patients undergoing bimaxillary orthognathic surgery (OGS). Methods: A cross-sectional comparative study was conducted on 10 patients who underwent Le Fort I osteotomy and bilateral sagittal split osteotomy (BSSO). Both CT data and FS images were acquired at the preoperative timepoint (T0). Standardized soft-tissue anatomical landmarks were identified in 3-Matic Research software (v.13, Materialise NV). Sixteen linear and five angular measurements were performed for comparison. Results: Most linear and angular indices showed no statistically significant differences between CT and FS. However, three linear parameters demonstrated significant discrepancies: mandibular width Go’–Go’ (greater in CT by ~4.63 mm; p = 0.016), Li–(Sn–Pog’) distance (greater in FS by ~0.73 mm; p = 0.029), and Li–H line distance (greater in FS by ~0.34 mm; p = 0.043). Landmarks located on convex surfaces or defined relative to skeletal reference points (e.g., Go’, Pog’, Zy’) were more susceptible to measurement error. Conclusion: While FS and CT demonstrate high overall agreement, specific landmarks may show clinically relevant differences. For cases requiring high precision in aesthetic planning and surgical execution, the combined use of CT and FS is recommended to maximize the strengths of each modality.
Article Details
Keywords
Facial scanner, Computed tomography, Orthognathic surgery
References
2. Arnett GW, Gunson MJ. Facial planning for orthodontists and oral surgeons. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop. Sep 2004;126(3):290-5. doi:10.1016/j.ajodo.2004.06.006
3. Watanabe H, Honda E, Tetsumura A, Kurabayashi T. A comparative study for spatial resolution and subjective image characteristics of a multi-slice CT and a cone-beam CT for dental use. Eur J Radiol. Mar 2011;77(3):397-402. doi:10.1016/j.ejrad.2009.09.023
4. Tzou CH, Artner NM, Pona I, et al. Comparison of three-dimensional surface-imaging systems. J Plast Reconstr Aesthet Surg. Apr 2014; 67(4): 489-97. doi:10.1016/j.bjps.2014. 01.003
5. Aldridge K, Boyadjiev SA, Capone GT, DeLeon VB, Richtsmeier JT. Precision and error of three-dimensional phenotypic measures acquired from 3dMD photogrammetric images. Am J Med Genet A. 2005;15(3):247-53.
6. Raschke GF, Rieger UM, Bader RD, Guentsch A, Schaefer O, Schultze-Mosgau S. Soft tissue outcome after mandibular advancement--an anthropometric evaluation of 171 consecutive patients. Clin Oral Investig. Jun 2013; 17(5): 1415-23. doi:10.1007/s00784-012-0821-2
7. Guler OC, Malkoc S. Comparison of facial soft tissue changes after treatment with 3 different functional appliances. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop. Oct 2020;158(4): 518-526. doi:10.1016/ j.ajodo.2019.06.020
8. Kim SH, Jung WY, Seo YJ, Kim KA, Park KH, Park YG. Accuracy and precision of integumental linear dimensions in a three-dimensional facial imaging system. Korean J Orthod. May 2015; 45(3): 105-12. doi:10.4041/kjod.2015. 45.3.105
9. Olejnik A, Verstraete L, Croonenborghs TM, Politis C, Swennen GRJ. The Accuracy of Three-Dimensional Soft Tissue Simulation in Orthognathic Surgery-A Systematic Review. J Imaging. May 14 2024;10(5)doi: 10.3390/ jimaging10050119
10. Swennen G. 3D Virtual Treatment Planning of Orthognathic Surgery_ A Step-by-Step Approach for Orthodontists and Surgeons-Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg. Spinger. 2017;