Home | About us | Editorial board | Ahead of print | Current issue | Archives | Search | Submit article | Instructions | Subscribe | Advertise | Contact us |  Login 
National Journal of Maxillofacial Surgery
Print this page Email this page Small font sizeDefault font sizeIncrease font size
Users Online: 3877
Year : 2014  |  Volume : 5  |  Issue : 2  |  Page : 157-160

Evaluation of soft and hard tissue changes after bimaxillary surgery in class III orthognathic surgery and aesthetic consideration

1 Department of Orthodontics, School of Medicine, University of Aachen, Aachen, Germany
2 Department of Oral, Maxillofacial and Plastic Facial Surgery, School of Medicine, University Hospital, Aachen, Germany
3 Department of Orthodontics, Shahid Beheshti University of Medical Sciences, Tehran, Iran
4 Department of Oral and Maxillofacial Surgery, Aligarh Muslim University, Aligarh, India
5 Department of Oral and Maxillofacial Surgery, Faculty of Dental Sciences, Chhatrapati Shahuji Maharaj Medical University, Lucknow, Uttar Pradesh, India
6 Department of Orthodontics, Dental Branch Islamic Azad University, Tehran, Iran

Correspondence Address:
Abdolreza Jamilian
No 2713, Jam Tower, Next to Ravanpour Al,Vali Asr Street, Tehran, 1966843133
Login to access the Email id

Source of Support: None, Conflict of Interest: None

DOI: 10.4103/0975-5950.154819

Rights and Permissions

Aims: The aim of this study was to evaluate hard and soft tissue change after bimaxillary surgery in class III patients by focusing on sella, nasion, A point (SNA) and sella, nasion, B point (SNB) angle and aesthetic outcome. Materials and Methods: The sample consisted of 96 skeletal Class III patients (42 women, 54 men) with a mean age of 25 years with standard deviation (SD) of 8.4. The youngest patient was 16-years-old and the oldest 51-years-old at the time of surgery. In total, seven skeletal parameters, eight soft tissue parameters, and two dental parameters were evaluated on the cephalograms. Result: At the beginning of the treatment 49 Patients had SNA between 80° and 84°, 34 had SNA of less than 80° and 13 had SNA of more than 84°. Post surgically, 25 patients had SNA of 78°-84°, 19 had SNA less than 78° and 52 patients had SNA of more than 84°. Out of 96 patients 22 had SNB of 78°-82° before surgery, 16 had less than 78° and 58 had SNA of more than 84°. Postoperatively, we measured SNB of 78°-80° in 42, less than 78° in 18 and of more than 82° in 36 patients. The inclination of the maxilla relative to the cranial base changed from 7.2° (SD = 4)-8° (SD = 5.1) and the mandible changed from 35.7° (SD = 6.6) to 36° (SD = 6.3) postoperatively which was not significant. The distance from upper lip to E-line increased by 2.6 mm (SD = 3.9) after surgery (P < 0.001), while, the lower lip distance to E-line decreased slightly by 0.9 mm (SD = 3.2) (P < 0.01). Nasolabial angle was decreased by 9.5° (SD = 9.4) after surgery (P < 0.001). The nose prominence also decreased from 18.2 mm (SD = 3.5) -16.5 mm (SD = 3.3). Conclusion: Although in many cases we did not have a SNA angle or SNB angle in normal range but a good aesthetic outcome have been observed. Consequently our study showed that soft tissue change and aesthetic aspects should be considered in surgical planning and achieving SNA angle or SNB angle of norm range should not be the only goal. As we could show the advancement of maxilla will result in a better lip and nose profile and this should be considered in treatment planning.

Print this article     Email this article
 Next article
 Previous article
 Table of Contents

 Similar in PUBMED
   Search Pubmed for
   Search in Google Scholar for
 Related articles
 Citation Manager
 Access Statistics
 Reader Comments
 Email Alert *
 Add to My List *
 * Requires registration (Free)

 Article Access Statistics
    PDF Downloaded462    
    Comments [Add]    
    Cited by others 4    

Recommend this journal