Open Access
J Oral Med Oral Surg
Volume 27, Number 2, 2021
Article Number 27
Number of page(s) 5
Published online 24 February 2021

© The authors, 2021

Licence Creative CommonsThis is an Open Access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License (, which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.


Obstructive sleep apnea (OSA) is characterized by insomnia, sleep-related breathing disorders, and other sleep disorders. Multiple complications are observed as cardiovascular diseases (stroke, hypertension, cardiac and coronary diseases), metabolic disorders (diabetes, dyslipidemia) and neuropsychological troubles. It is defined as an Apnea Hypopnea Index (AHI) of 5 or more [1]. According to the Stanford Protocol [24], the surgical indication can be set with 20 events per hour, or less if the patient has an excessive daytime fatigue.

For severe OSA, the first intention treatment is Continuous Positive Airway Pressure (CPAP).

Maxillomandibular advancement surgery is proposed for patients who are refusing or not tolerating CPAP [5]. It consists in a Le Fort I osteotomy and a bilateral sagittal split osteotomy (BSSO) [4] with a maxillomandibular propulsion and counterclockwise rotation. The success of the surgery is defined as a decrease of AHI over 50% and/or AHI under 10 events per hour [6,7].

A complete maxillomandibular dental rehabilitation consists in a complete implant-supported [8,9] fixed prosthesis which will make it possible to have an occlusal plan before the orthognathic surgery.

The aim of this case is the treatment of the class 2 occlusion, the OSA and the oral rehabilitation in the same sequence.


A 42-year-old patient was referred to the oro-maxillo-facial surgery department for a complete maxillo-mandibular dental rehabilitation. The patient had a medical history of cardiomyopathy treated with PERINDOPRIL and severe OSA with AHI of 41 per hour. Clinical and radiologic examination revealed an altered dental status (Figs. 1c and 1d) and a vertical and sagittal insufficiency of the lower third of the face (Figs. 1a, 1b, Fig. 1e).

The following treatment was set up by a multidisciplinary team of dentists, oral surgeons and maxillofacial surgeons.

At first, the avulsion of all teeth except 33-34-35 and 43 was performed after a compromise with the patient and his dentist. Three months later 6 maxillary and 6 mandibular dental implants (Nobel Biocare®, Kloten, Switzerland) were placed. The maxillary implants were immediately loaded with a fixed prosthesis.

A wax up model was made for the mandible and a removable prosthesis was prepared. In order to prepare the orthognathic surgery, an axial CT scan of the facial skeleton was performed to extract the corresponding DICOM and to import it in Mimics Medical® 18.0 software (Materialise®, Leuven, Belgium) to prepare the virtual model. Plaster occlusion models were optically scanned and integrated to the virtual models. The planning of the surgery was virtually performed in ProPlan CMF software (Materialise®, Leuven, Belgium) during a webmeeting with the surgeon and a clinical engineer (Fig. 2a). The guides (Fig. 2b) and custom plates (Fig. 2c) were performed on 3-matic 11 software (Materialise®, Leuven, Belgium) and then manufactured in a surgical grade titanium. The mandibular osteotomy was performed 3 months later in order to obtain a class I prosthetic based occlusion with a 12 mm mandibular propulsion (Fig. 3e).

The post-operative period was marked with a slow recovering lower lip dysesthesia, osteolysis in regard of the screws of the right titanium plate and fracture of the left titanium plate. The occlusion remained stable and similar to the simulation because of the beginning of bone consolidation. A new intervention was performed 6 weeks after the initial surgery to remove the plates and put conventional plates and a bicortical screw in the left mandible (GlobalD®, Brignais, France) (Fig. 3d). No complications were noticed after the re-intervention. At 4 month follow up, the bone consolidation was satisfying and the lower lip dysesthesia recovered completely after a few month.

A new analysis of the OSA by polysomnography performed 6 months later showed an AHI of 10. The definitive prosthesis was made 6 months after the last surgery to adjust the esthetic result (Fig. 3a and 3b) and dental occlusion (Fig. 3c).

thumbnail Fig. 1

(a) Face view before treatment, (b) profile view before treatment, (c) oral view before treatment, (d) orthopantomogram before treatment, (e) lateral cephalometric before treatment.

thumbnail Fig. 2

(a) 3D model before othognathic surgery, (b) 3D model with the guides set up, (c) 3D model after the simulation with the custom plates.

thumbnail Fig. 3

(a) Face view after treatment, (b) profile picture after treatment, (c) oral view after treatment, (d) orthopantomogram after treatment, (e) lateral cephalometric after treatment.


The full arch implant-supported prostheses [8] were used to simulate the post-treatment occlusion and create surgical guides [10] and custom plates which permitted to set an ideal bone bases placement including condylar retropulsion leading to an optimal functional and esthetic result. The use of surgical guides and patient-specific plates, engineered by computer-aided design and manufacturing (CAD-CAM) permitted to obtain predictable results and are particularly useful in complex cases.

This kind of treatment sequence can be compared with an ortho-surgical protocol. The class 2 occlusion has not been compensated with the implant supported prosthesis. The prosthesis has been designed to set the class 1 occlusion during the surgery.

A similar treatment sequence is usually set up for patients with severe maxillary atrophy requiring bone grafts, Le Fort I osteotomy and dental implants [1114]. Le Fort I osteotomy is usually performed after the bone grafts and the implants placement [15].

Even if it is possible to perform orthognathic surgery before the implant placement, it would have consisted in our case in performing the BSSO on an edentulous patient [16]. This sequence provides more predictability for the planning and stability of the surgery. The implant supported prosthesis can be used to set an occlusion plan and to guide the surgery. It also permits to avoid difficulties resulting of orthognathic surgery performed on an edentulous patient in terms of planning and predictability [16]. Also, in this case, the patient was young with an hypertrophy of the masticatory muscles, an orthognathic surgery without occlusal wedging, risk of lack of bone consolidation would have been too high. No case of virtual planning of BSSO based on implant fixed prosthesis have been found in literature so far.

According to Vigneron et al. [7], patients with severe OSA have to fulfil some criteria to be considered as good candidates for maxillomandibular advancement: age < 45 years, body mass index (BMI) < 25 kg/m2, AHI < 45 events per hour, SNB angle < 75°, a retrobasilingual space < 8 mm, with prior orthodontic preparation and without comorbidity.

In this case, the patient was <45 years old, had <45 events per hour, an SNB angle of 76.7°.

Indication of orthognathic surgery was esthetical, occlusal and functional for the OSA. The alternative treatment was a CPAP treatment associated with a full-arch rehabilitation with a prosthetic compensation of the class 2 which is not satisfying according to the bad tolerance of the CPAP [5], the absence of correction of the dysmorphia, the esthetical disorders and the risk of prosthetic fracture due to an important cantilever.

The Stanford recommendations for sleep-apnea surgery consist in a maxilla-mandibular propulsion with a counterclockwise rotation [4] but some authors showed that it was possible to have an effectiveness on the volume of the airways after practicing a mandibular advancement only [17,18]. The propulsion was set with 12 mm and. An additional Le Fort I osteotomy and maxillary propulsion would have led to a too important mandibular propulsion to maintain the class I occlusion. The patient had also an open nasolabial angle and maxillary movements would have change the nasolabial anatomy with the risk of being unaesthetic [19,20].


A multidisciplinary approach with implantologist, oral surgeons and maxillofacial surgeon was mandatory to treat this patient with full arch restoration by implants followed by virtual planning and guided mandibular osteotomy. OSA, edentulous jaw and maxillomandibular discrepancy have been treated by a single surgical sequence during which the implant placement and the prostheses permitted to plan and guide the orthognathic surgery.

Conflicts of interests

The authors declare that they have no conflicts of interest in relation to this article.


  1. Sateia MJ. International Classification of Sleep Disorders-Third Edition. Chest. 2014;146:1387–1394. [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  2. Riley RW, Powell NB, Guilleminault C. Obstructive sleep apnea syndrome: a surgical protocol for dynamic upper airway reconstruction. J Oral Maxillofac Surg. 1993;51:742–747. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  3. Liu SY, Riley RW. Continuing the original stanford sleep surgery protocol from upper airway reconstruction to upper airway stimulation: our first successful case. J Oral Maxillofac Surg. 2017;75:1514–1518. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  4. Liu SY-C., Awad M, Riley R, Capasso R. The role of the revised stanford protocol in today's precision medicine. Sleep Med Clin. 2019;14:99–107. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  5. Randerath WJ, Verbraecken J, Andreas S, Bettega G, Boudewyns A, Hamans E, et al. Non-CPAP therapies in obstructive sleep apnoea. Eur Respir J. 2011;37:1000–1028. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  6. Bettega G, Pépin J-L, Veale D, Deschaux C, Raphaël B, Lévy P. Obstructive sleep apnea syndrome. American Journal of Respiratory and Critical Care Medicine. 2000;162:9. [Google Scholar]
  7. Vigneron A, Tamisier R, Orset E, Pepin J-L., Bettega G. Maxillomandibular advancement for obstructive sleep apnea syndrome treatment: long-term results. J Cranio-Maxillofac Surg. 2017;45:183–191. [Google Scholar]
  8. Adell R, Lekholm U, Rockler B, Brånemark P-I. A 15-year study of osseointegrated implants in the treatment of the edentulous jaw. Int J Oral Surg. 1981;10:387–416. [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
  9. Cawood JI, Howell RA. A classification of the edentulous jaws. Int J Oral Maxillofac Surg. 1988;17:232–236. [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  10. Lin H-H., Lonic D, Lo L-J. 3D printing in orthognathic surgery − a literature review. J Formos Med Assoc. 2018;117:547–558. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  11. Ribeiro-Junior PD, Padovan LEM, Gonçales ES, Nary-Filho H. Bone grafting and insertion of dental implants followed by Le Fort advancement for correction of severely atrophic maxilla in young patients. Int J Oral Maxillofac Surg. 2009;38:1101–1106. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  12. Batista Mendes GC, Laskarides C, Ayub EA, Ribeiro-Junior PD. Dental implants can facilitate orthognathic surgery in a patient with severe maxillary atrophy. J Oral Maxillofac Surg. 2019;77:730–739. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  13. Lopes JFS, Pinto JHN, Lopes MMW, Mazottini R, Soares S. Interrelationship between implant and orthognathic surgery for the rehabilitation of edentulous cleft palate patients: a case report. J Appl Oral Sci. 2015;23:224–229. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  14. Khojasteh A, Payaminia L, Alikhasi M. Implant assisted ortho-surgery in edentulous jaws: a clinical report. Clin Case Rep. 2015;3:920–926. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  15. Gil JN, Claus JDP, Campos FEB, Lima SM. Management of the severely resorbed maxilla using Le Fort I osteotomy. Int J Oral Maxillofac Surg. 2008;37:1153–1155. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  16. Ho JPTF, Schreurs R, Baan F, de Lange J, Becking AG. Splintless orthognathic surgery in edentulous patients—a pilot study. Int J Oral Maxillofac Surg. 2020;49:587–594. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  17. Ristow O, Rückschloß T, Berger M, Grötz T, Kargus S, Krisam J, et al. Short- and long-term changes of the pharyngeal airway after surgical mandibular advancement in Class II patients—a three-dimensional retrospective study. J Cranio-Maxillofac Surg. 2018;46:56–62. [Google Scholar]
  18. Rückschloß T, Ristow O, Berger M, Engel M, Freudlsperger C, Hoffmann J, et al. Relations between mandible-only advancement surgery, the extent of the posterior airway space, and the position of the hyoid bone in Class II patients: a three-dimensional analysis. Br J Oral Maxillofac Surg. 2019;57:1032–1038. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  19. Allar ML, Movahed R, Wolford LM, Oliver DR, Harrison SD, Thiesen G, et al. Nasolabial changes following double jaw surgery. J Craniofac Surg. 2019;30:2560–2564. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  20. Khamashta-Ledezma L, Naini FB. Prospective assessment of maxillary advancement effects: maxillary incisor exposure, and upper lip and nasal changes. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop. 2015;147:454–464. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

All Figures

thumbnail Fig. 1

(a) Face view before treatment, (b) profile view before treatment, (c) oral view before treatment, (d) orthopantomogram before treatment, (e) lateral cephalometric before treatment.

In the text
thumbnail Fig. 2

(a) 3D model before othognathic surgery, (b) 3D model with the guides set up, (c) 3D model after the simulation with the custom plates.

In the text
thumbnail Fig. 3

(a) Face view after treatment, (b) profile picture after treatment, (c) oral view after treatment, (d) orthopantomogram after treatment, (e) lateral cephalometric after treatment.

In the text

Current usage metrics show cumulative count of Article Views (full-text article views including HTML views, PDF and ePub downloads, according to the available data) and Abstracts Views on Vision4Press platform.

Data correspond to usage on the plateform after 2015. The current usage metrics is available 48-96 hours after online publication and is updated daily on week days.

Initial download of the metrics may take a while.