The Journal of craniofacial surgery · 2014
Soft tissue response after chin advancement using two different genioplasty techniques: a preliminary technical comparative study.
Сравнительное исследованиеСтатьяНазвание и аннотация: Перевод пока не подготовлен
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.
Seifeldin Sameh Ahemd, Shawky Maha, Hicham Nouman Saleem M
Аннотация
PURPOSE: The aim of this study was to evaluate soft tissue response after chin advancement using 2 different genioplasty techniques.
METHODS: The study included 8 adult patients who were divided equally into 2 groups: group 1 was surgically treated by sliding genioplasty, and group 2 was surgically treated by chin shield genioplasty for the correction of retruded or deficient chin. Lateral cephalograms were taken twice: immediately preoperative and 6 months postoperative.
RESULTS: The mean (SD) change of soft tissue pogonion (Pg') was 4.7 (0.3) mm in group 1, whereas in group 2, the mean (SD) change of soft tissue pogonion (Pg') was 6.2 (4.8) mm. The mean (SD) change in the labiomental depth in group 1 was 0.9 (0.3) mm, whereas in group 2, it was 0.2 (0.5) mm. So in group 2, chin shield genioplasty contributed to a less labiomental fold depth. The ratio of soft tissue response to bony movement in the sliding genioplasty technique was 1:0.83, whereas in the chin shield genioplasty technique, it was 1:0.99.
CONCLUSIONS: In the chin shield genioplasty technique, the increase in labiomental fold depth was less than in the sliding genioplasty technique.
METHODS: The study included 8 adult patients who were divided equally into 2 groups: group 1 was surgically treated by sliding genioplasty, and group 2 was surgically treated by chin shield genioplasty for the correction of retruded or deficient chin. Lateral cephalograms were taken twice: immediately preoperative and 6 months postoperative.
RESULTS: The mean (SD) change of soft tissue pogonion (Pg') was 4.7 (0.3) mm in group 1, whereas in group 2, the mean (SD) change of soft tissue pogonion (Pg') was 6.2 (4.8) mm. The mean (SD) change in the labiomental depth in group 1 was 0.9 (0.3) mm, whereas in group 2, it was 0.2 (0.5) mm. So in group 2, chin shield genioplasty contributed to a less labiomental fold depth. The ratio of soft tissue response to bony movement in the sliding genioplasty technique was 1:0.83, whereas in the chin shield genioplasty technique, it was 1:0.99.
CONCLUSIONS: In the chin shield genioplasty technique, the increase in labiomental fold depth was less than in the sliding genioplasty technique.