Browse > Article

A study on the preorthodontic prediction values versus the actual postorthodontic values in Class III surgery patients  

Hwang, Chung-Ju (Department of Orthodontics, College of Dentistry, Yonsei University)
Kwon, Hee-Jeong (Department of Orthodontics, College of Dentistry, Yonsei University)
Publication Information
The korean journal of orthodontics / v.33, no.1, 2003 , pp. 1-9 More about this Journal
Abstract
The purpose of this study was to find out and evaluate discrepancies between preorthodontic prediction values and actual postorthodontic values and factors contributing to it in 45 patients(17 male, 28 female) who were diagnosed as skeletal Class III ma)occlusion and received presurgical orthodontic treatment and orthognathic surgery at Yonsei university dental hospital. Lateral cephalograms were analysed at pretreatment(T1), orthodontic Prediction(T2), immediately before surgery(T3) and designated the landmark as coordinates or X and Y axes. The samples were divided according to ALD, upper and lower incisor inclination(Ul to SN, IMPA), COS, extraction, the position of extracted teeth and the statistical significance was tested to find out the factors contributing to the prediction. The results were as follows: 1. Differences between preorthodontic prediction values and actual postorthodontic values(T2-T3) were statistically significant(p<0.05) in the x coordinates of U6mbc, L1x and in y coordinates of U1i, U1x, U6me, U6mbc, L6mbc 2. The accuracy of prediction is relatively higher in horizontal changes compared to vortical changes. 3. The statistical significance(p<0.05) between prediction and actual values is observed more in the landmarks of the maxilla than the mandible. 4. Differences between prediction and actual values of incisor and first molar were statistically significant(p<0.05) according to extraction vs non-extraction, extraction type, ALD in the maxilla and according to ALD, IMPA in the mandible. Discrepancies between preorthodontic prediction values and actual postorthodontic values and factors contributing to the prediction must be considered in treatment planning of Cl III surgical patients to increase the accuracy of prediction. Furthermore future investigations are needed on the prediction of vortical changes.
Keywords
Skeletal Class III malocclusion; Preorthodontic prediction value; Actual postorthodontic value;
Citations & Related Records
연도 인용수 순위
  • Reference
1 Pospisil OA : Reliability and feasibility of prediction tracing in orthognathic surgery. J Cranio Maxillofac Surg 15 : 79'-83, 1987   DOI
2 Friede H, Kahnberg KE, Adell R, Ridell A : Accuracy of cephalometric prediction in orthognathic surgery. J Oral Maxillofac Surg 45 : 754-60, 1987   DOI   ScienceOn
3 Johnston L.E : A statistical evaluation of cephalometric prediction. Angle orthod 1968 : 38 : 284-304   PUBMED
4 McCollum TG : TOMAC : An orthognathic treatment planning system, Part 2 VTO comstruction in the horizontal dimension. J Clin Orthod 35 : 434-43, 2001
5 Proffit WR, White RP : Surgical-orthodontic treatment. Mosby, 1991
6 Sinclair PM, Thomas PM, Tucker MR : Common complications in orthognathic surgery : Etiology and management. Part 1 presurgical preparation. J Clin Orthod 17 : 385-97, 1993
7 Fish LC, Epker BN : Surgical-orthodontic cephlcmetric prediction tracing. J Clin Orthod 14 : 36-52, 1980   PUBMED
8 Tweed C. H : The Frankfort mandibular incisor angle in orthodontic diagnosis, treatment planning and prognosis. Angle Orthod 24 : 121-69, 1954
9 McCollum TG : TOMAC : An orthognathic treatment planning system, Part 1. soft tissue analysis. J Clin Orthod 35 : 356-64, 2001
10 McCollum TG : TOMAC : An orthognathic treatment planning system, Part 3 VTO construction in the vertical dimension. J Clin Orthod 35 : 478-90, 2001
11 Joe D. Jacobs, Peter M. Sinclair : Principles of orthodontic mechanics in orthognathic surgerycases. Am J orthod 84 : 399-407, 1983   DOI   ScienceOn
12 Csaszar GR, Csaszar BB, Niederdellmann H. Prediction of soft tissue profiles in orthognathic surgery with dentofacial planner. Int J Adult Orthod Orthognath Surg 14 : 285-90, 1999   PUBMED
13 Tompach PC, Wheeler JJ, Fridrich KL: Orthodontic considerations in orthognathic surgery. Int J Adult Orthod Orthognathic surg 10 : 97-107, 1995
14 Cecil C. Steiner : The use of cephalometries as an aid to planning and assessing orthodontic treatment. Am J Orthod 46 : 721-35, 1960   DOI   ScienceOn
15 Giangreco TA, Forbes DP, Jacobson RS, Kallal RH, Moretti RJ,Marshall SD : Subjective evaluation of profile prediction using video imaging. Int J Adult Orthod Orthognath Surg 10 : 211-7, 1995
16 Hing NR : The accuracy of computer generated prediction tracings. Int J Oral Maxillofac Surg 18 : 148-51, 1989   DOI   ScienceOn
17 Burstone CJ, James RB, Legan HL : Cepahlometrics for orthognathic surgery. J oral surg 36 : 269-77, 1978   PUBMED
18 McNeill RW, Proffit WR, White RP, Cephalometric prediction for orthognathic surgery. Angle orthod 42 : 154-64, 1972
19 Konstiantos KA, O'Reilly M, Close J : The validity of the prediction of soft tissue profile changes after Lefort I osteotomy using the dentofacial planner(cornputer software). Am J Orthod Dentofac Orthop 105 : 241-9, 1994   DOI   ScienceOn
20 E. H Hixon : Cephalornetrics : A perspective. Angle orthod 1972 : 42 : 200-11
21 E. H. Hixon: The norm concept and cephalometries, Am J Ortho 42 : 898-906, 1956   DOI   ScienceOn