The Journal of craniofacial surgery · 2011
Evaluation of the nose profile after maxillary advancement with impaction surgeries.
СтатьяНазвание 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.
Esenlik Elçin, Kaya Basar, Gülsen Ayse, Çukurluoğlu Onur, Özmen Selahattin, Yavuzer Reha
Аннотация
OBJECTIVE: The aim of this study was to identify and quantify nasal profile changes following maxillary advancement (MA) and maxillary advancement with impaction (MAI) with Le Fort I osteotomies.
METHODS: The study consisted of preoperative and postoperative lateral cephalograms of 42 class III adult patients. The study sample was divided into 2 groups, with the first group composed of 22 patients who underwent MA surgery and the second group composed of 20 patients who underwent MAI surgery. In total, 7 skeletal parameters and 17 soft-tissue parameters related to nasal projection, hump, dorsal convexity, and the nasolabial region were evaluated on the cephalograms, and hard- and soft-tissue relationships were assessed.
RESULTS: Nasal length, hump, nasal depths, distance from the most convex point of the Alar curvature to the most inferior point of the nostril, alar curvature-subnasale, and subnasale-pronasale measurements decreased postoperatively. In the MAI group, MA correlated with significant decreases in nasal length and hump. In the MA group, MA correlated with pronasale position (P < 0.05); significant decreases in nasal depth, columella convexity, and subnasale-pronasale length; and significant changes in subnasale position.
CONCLUSIONS: There is little difference in the effects of the 2 different maxillary surgeries on the postoperative nasal profile.
METHODS: The study consisted of preoperative and postoperative lateral cephalograms of 42 class III adult patients. The study sample was divided into 2 groups, with the first group composed of 22 patients who underwent MA surgery and the second group composed of 20 patients who underwent MAI surgery. In total, 7 skeletal parameters and 17 soft-tissue parameters related to nasal projection, hump, dorsal convexity, and the nasolabial region were evaluated on the cephalograms, and hard- and soft-tissue relationships were assessed.
RESULTS: Nasal length, hump, nasal depths, distance from the most convex point of the Alar curvature to the most inferior point of the nostril, alar curvature-subnasale, and subnasale-pronasale measurements decreased postoperatively. In the MAI group, MA correlated with significant decreases in nasal length and hump. In the MA group, MA correlated with pronasale position (P < 0.05); significant decreases in nasal depth, columella convexity, and subnasale-pronasale length; and significant changes in subnasale position.
CONCLUSIONS: There is little difference in the effects of the 2 different maxillary surgeries on the postoperative nasal profile.