Head & face medicine · 2026
Comparison of nasolabial changes following Le Fort Ⅰ maxillary advancement versus Medpor implantation in skeletal class Ⅲ patients.
СтатьяСравнительное исследованиеНазвание 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.
Lv Xin, Li Jingyi, Cao Jun, Wang Yuxin, Yang Xudong, Zhang Qian
Аннотация
OBJECTIVE: Nasolabial depression is a main aesthetic concern in patients with skeletal Class Ⅲ malocclusion, for which Le Fort Ⅰ maxillary advancement or paranasal Medpor implantation is the major treatment choice. However, the aesthetic changes following these two treatments are unclear. This study aimed to compare the nasolabial modifications following Le Fort Ⅰ advancement and Medpor implantation to provide a reference for in surgical planning.
METHODS: Twenty skeletal Class Ⅲ patients undergoing Le Fort Ⅰ advancement or paranasal Medpor implantation were retrospectively enrolled (10 in the advancement group and 10 in the implantation group). Spiral CT data were acquired one week preoperatively (T1) and at least 6 months postoperatively (T2) for study. For detailed comparison, the nasolabial region was divided into paranasal and subnasal regions. A total of 26 landmarks were marked, from which 10 linear segments,4 angles, corresponding regional volume and curvature were measured.
RESULTS: The average moving distance in advancement group was 5.29 ± 0.53 mm, and the average thickness of the Medpor implant was 6.51 ± 0.72 mm. After surgery in both groups, most of the parameters in the paranasal and subnasal regions increased significantly (P ≤ 0.05), except for nasal length (N'-SN). In the advancement group, the postoperative nasal length (N'-SN) demonstrated a significant reduction compared to preoperative values, whereas in the implantation group, no significant difference was observed in nasal length (N'-SN) after surgery. In the paranasal region, alar width and alar base width showed significantly greater changes in the implantation group than in the advancement group. In the subnasal region, four linear segments, one angle and the corresponding volume and curvature showed significantly greater changes in the advancement group than in the implantation group.
CONCLUSION: Both Le Fort Ⅰ advancement and Medpor implantation can significantly improve paranasal depression. However, compared with Le Fort Ⅰ advancement, Medpor implantation provides limited improvement in subnasal depression but affects more in alar width.
METHODS: Twenty skeletal Class Ⅲ patients undergoing Le Fort Ⅰ advancement or paranasal Medpor implantation were retrospectively enrolled (10 in the advancement group and 10 in the implantation group). Spiral CT data were acquired one week preoperatively (T1) and at least 6 months postoperatively (T2) for study. For detailed comparison, the nasolabial region was divided into paranasal and subnasal regions. A total of 26 landmarks were marked, from which 10 linear segments,4 angles, corresponding regional volume and curvature were measured.
RESULTS: The average moving distance in advancement group was 5.29 ± 0.53 mm, and the average thickness of the Medpor implant was 6.51 ± 0.72 mm. After surgery in both groups, most of the parameters in the paranasal and subnasal regions increased significantly (P ≤ 0.05), except for nasal length (N'-SN). In the advancement group, the postoperative nasal length (N'-SN) demonstrated a significant reduction compared to preoperative values, whereas in the implantation group, no significant difference was observed in nasal length (N'-SN) after surgery. In the paranasal region, alar width and alar base width showed significantly greater changes in the implantation group than in the advancement group. In the subnasal region, four linear segments, one angle and the corresponding volume and curvature showed significantly greater changes in the advancement group than in the implantation group.
CONCLUSION: Both Le Fort Ⅰ advancement and Medpor implantation can significantly improve paranasal depression. However, compared with Le Fort Ⅰ advancement, Medpor implantation provides limited improvement in subnasal depression but affects more in alar width.