Orthognathic Surgery

2019 ◽  
pp. 609-622
Author(s):  
Ryan M. Moore ◽  
Raj M. Vyas
Keyword(s):  
Orthognathic Surgery ◽  
Surgical Planning ◽  
Preoperative Evaluation ◽  
Cephalometric Analysis ◽  
Operative Techniques ◽  
Virtual Surgical Planning ◽  
Bilateral Sagittal Split Osteotomy ◽  
Operative Planning ◽  
Facial Proportions ◽  
Facial Function

Orthognathic surgery restores the facial function and aesthetics affected by skeletal and dental deformities. A comprehensive preoperative evaluation, including cephalometric analysis, is essential to correcting facial skeletal imbalance and asymmetry. Operative planning must account for maxillary-to-mandibular occlusal relationship and dental compensations, as well as facial proportions in all dimensions. Virtual surgical planning has recently emerged as a way to facilitate more precise and accurate surgical planning. Operative techniques used to correct facial skeletal and dental deformities, broadly categorized as maxillary or mandibular excess or deficiency, include the LeFort I osteotomy, bilateral sagittal split osteotomy, and genioplasty.

scholarly journals Comparison of time and cost between conventional surgical planning and virtual surgical planning in orthognathic surgery in Korea

2021 ◽  
Vol 43 (1) ◽  
Author(s):  
Si-Yeon Park ◽  
Dae-Seok Hwang ◽  
Jae-Min Song ◽  
Uk-Kyu Kim
Keyword(s):  
Orthognathic Surgery ◽  
Surgical Planning ◽  
Reduction Rate ◽  
Virtual Surgical Planning ◽  
Time Investment ◽  
Sagittal Split Osteotomy ◽  
Group I ◽  
Bilateral Sagittal Split Osteotomy ◽  
Group Ii ◽  
The Difference

Abstract Background The purpose of this study was to measure the time of the conventional surgical planning (CSP) and virtual surgical planning (VSP) in orthognathic surgery and to compare them in terms of cost. Material and method This is a retrospective study of the patients who underwent orthognathic surgery at the OOOOO University Dental Hospital from December 2017 to August 2018. All the patients were analyzed through both CSP and VSP, and all the surgical stents were fabricated through manual and 3-dimensional (3D) printing. The predictor variables were the planning method (CSP vs. VSP) and the surgery type (group I: Le Fort I osteotomy+bilateral sagittal split osteotomy [LFI+BSSO] or group II: only bilateral sagittal split osteotomy [BSSO]), and the outcomes were the time and cost. The results were analyzed using paired t test. Results Thirty patients (12 females, 18 males) met the inclusion criteria, and 17 patients were excluded from the study due to missing or incomplete data. There were 20 group I patients (LFI+BSSO regardless of genioplasty) and 10 group II patients (BSSO regardless of genioplasty). The average time of CSP for group I was 385±7.8 min, and that for group II was 195±8.33 min. The time reduction rate of VSP compared with CSP was 62.8% in group I and 41.5% in group II. On the other hand, there was no statistically significant cost reduction. Conclusions The time investment in VSP in this study was significantly smaller than that in CSP, and the difference was greater in group I than in group II.

scholarly journals Comparison of time and cost between conventional surgical planning and virtual surgical planning in orthognathic surgery in Korea

2019 ◽  
Vol 41 (1) ◽  
Author(s):  
Si-Yeon Park ◽  
Dae-Seok Hwang ◽  
Jae-Min Song ◽  
Uk-Kyu Kim
Keyword(s):  
Orthognathic Surgery ◽  
Surgical Planning ◽  
Three Dimensional ◽  
Reduction Rate ◽  
Virtual Surgical Planning ◽  
Time Investment ◽  
Sagittal Split Osteotomy ◽  
Group I ◽  
Bilateral Sagittal Split Osteotomy ◽  
Group Ii

Abstract Background The purpose of this study was to measure the time of the conventional surgical planning (CSP) and virtual surgical planning (VSP) in orthognathic surgery and to compare them in terms of cost. Material and method This is a retrospective study of the patients who underwent orthognathic surgery at the Pusan National University Dental Hospital from December 2017 to August 2018. All the patients were analyzed through both CSP and VSP, and all the surgical stents were fabricated through manual and three-dimensional (3D) printing. The predictor variables were the planning method (CSP vs. VSP) and the surgery type (group I: Le Fort I osteotomy + bilateral sagittal split osteotomy [LFI+BSSO] or group II: only bilateral sagittal split osteotomy [BSSO]), and the outcomes were the time and cost. The results were analyzed using the paired t test. Results Thirty patients (12 females, 18 males) met the inclusion criteria, and 17 patients were excluded from the study due to missing or incomplete data. There were 20 group I patients (LFI+BSSO regardless of genioplasty) and 10 group II patients (BSSO regardless of genioplasty). The average time of CSP for group I was 385 ± 7.8 min, and that for group II was 195 ± 8.33 min. The time reduction rate of VSP compared with CSP was 62.8% in group I and 41.5% in group II. On the other hand, there was no statistically significant cost reduction. Conclusions The time investment in VSP in this study was significantly smaller than that in CSP, and the difference was greater in group I than in group II.

Open Esophageal Procedures

2014 ◽  
Author(s):  
Cameron D Wright
Keyword(s):  
Preoperative Evaluation ◽  
Transhiatal Esophagectomy ◽  
Outcome Evaluation ◽  
Hiatal Hernia Repair ◽  
Operative Techniques ◽  
Esophageal Diseases ◽  
Ivor Lewis ◽  
Ivor Lewis Esophagectomy ◽  
Zenker Diverticulum ◽  
Operative Planning

The growing stature of minimally invasive approaches to esophageal diseases does not diminish the importance of the equivalent open approaches. This chapter describes common open operations performed to excise Zenker diverticulum, to manage complex gastroesophageal reflux disease, and to resect esophageal and proximal gastric tumors. For each of these open procedures, the preoperative evaluation, operative planning, steps of the operative techniques, postoperative care, complications, and outcome evaluation are described. Over two dozen figures show many of the operative steps for a cricopharyngeal myotomy and excision of Zenker diverticulum, a transthoracic hiatal hernia repair, a transhiatal esophagectomy, Ivor-Lewis esophagectomy, and a left thoracoabdominal esophagogastrectomy. This chapter contains 27 figures, 12 tables, 13 references, 5 Board-styled MCQs, and 1 Teaching Slide Set.

Answer To The Authors: 3D virtual surgical planning for positioning and orientation of the maxilla in orthognathic surgery: Methodological issues on accuracy and agreement

2020 ◽  
Author(s):  
Renata Hernandes Tonin ◽  
Liogi Iwaki Filho ◽  
Amanda Lury Yamashita ◽  
Flávio Wellington da Silva Ferraz ◽  
Elen de Souza Tolentino ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Orthognathic Surgery ◽  
Surgical Planning ◽  
Methodological Issues ◽  
Virtual Surgical Planning

Is There a Difference in Cost Between Standard and Virtual Surgical Planning for Orthognathic Surgery?

2016 ◽  
Vol 74 (9) ◽  
pp. 1827-1833 ◽  
Author(s):  
Cory M. Resnick ◽  
Gino Inverso ◽  
Mariusz Wrzosek ◽  
Bonnie L. Padwa ◽  
Leonard B. Kaban ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Orthognathic Surgery ◽  
Surgical Planning ◽  
Virtual Surgical Planning
Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document