Maxillofacial plastic and reconstructive surgery · 2023
Skeletal structure of asymmetric mandibular prognathism and retrognathism.
СтатьяНазвание и аннотация: Перевод в очереди
Обработка статьи · этапы, ошибки и управление
Загрузка состояния…
Ошибки и ограничения
История · было → стало
Состояние обновляется каждые 5 секунд, пока блок открыт. Процент показывается только там, где известен объём работы. Пауза останавливает продолжение этапа; текущий запрос к источнику может завершиться.
Xi Tong, Vinayahalingam Shankeeth, Bergé Stefaan, Maal Thomas, Kwon Tae-Geon
Аннотация
BACKGROUND: This study aimed to compare the skeletal structures between mandibular prognathism and retrognathism among patients with facial asymmetry.
RESULTS: Patients who had mandibular asymmetry with retrognathism (Group A) in The Netherlands were compared with those with deviated mandibular prognathism (Group B) in Korea. All the data were obtained from 3D-reformatted cone-beam computed tomography images from each institute. The right and left condylar heads were located more posteriorly, inferiorly, and medially in Group B than in Group A. The deviated side of Group A and the contralateral side of Group B showed similar condylar width and height, ramus-proper height, and ramus height. Interestingly, there were no inter-group differences in the ramus-proper heights. Asymmetric mandibular body length was the most significantly correlated with chin asymmetry in retrognathic asymmetry patients whereas asymmetric elongation of condylar process was the most important factor for chin asymmetry in deviated mandibular prognathism.
CONCLUSION: Considering the 3D positional difference of gonion and large individual variations of frontal ramal inclination, significant structural deformation in deviated mandibular prognathism need to be considered in asymmetric prognathism patients. Therefore, Individually planned surgical procedures that also correct the malpositioning of the mandibular ramus are recommended especially in patients with asymmetric prognathism.
RESULTS: Patients who had mandibular asymmetry with retrognathism (Group A) in The Netherlands were compared with those with deviated mandibular prognathism (Group B) in Korea. All the data were obtained from 3D-reformatted cone-beam computed tomography images from each institute. The right and left condylar heads were located more posteriorly, inferiorly, and medially in Group B than in Group A. The deviated side of Group A and the contralateral side of Group B showed similar condylar width and height, ramus-proper height, and ramus height. Interestingly, there were no inter-group differences in the ramus-proper heights. Asymmetric mandibular body length was the most significantly correlated with chin asymmetry in retrognathic asymmetry patients whereas asymmetric elongation of condylar process was the most important factor for chin asymmetry in deviated mandibular prognathism.
CONCLUSION: Considering the 3D positional difference of gonion and large individual variations of frontal ramal inclination, significant structural deformation in deviated mandibular prognathism need to be considered in asymmetric prognathism patients. Therefore, Individually planned surgical procedures that also correct the malpositioning of the mandibular ramus are recommended especially in patients with asymmetric prognathism.