Open Access
Table II
Data from included articles.
| Author, year | Aim of the study | Material and methods (type of planning, operating sequence, methods for studying the accuracy of results) | Population (number, gender, age, surgical indication) | Surgery-related factors (operating time, revision of osteosynthesis, occurrence of complications) | Compliance of immediate skeletal and occlusal results | Length of follow-up and outcome |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Beziat et al., 2009 [11] | Asses the reliability of sagittal split osteotomy and Le Fort I osteotomy respectively, and to try to judge objectively the impact of their order for the final result of bimaxillary osteotomy |
Articulator planning Mandible-first for all patients with condylar position using a T-shaped osteosynthesis plate and a centric relation splint Anteroposterior and transverse error quantification by measuring the offset between the target position and the position obtained using a first occlusal wax made intraoperatively after mandibular osteotomy and a second occlusal wax after maxillary osteotomy |
N = 50 Female N = 31 Male N = 19 Age from 15 to 46 Skeletal class II N = 32 Skeletal class III N = 18 |
No information | After mandible osteotomy: – difference in anteroposterior positioning for 74% of cases with a mean backward or forward movement of 0.32mm (maximum 1mm) – difference in transverse positioning for 48% of cases with a mean error of 0.19mm (maximum 0.75mm) After maxillary osteotomy: – difference in anteroposterior positioning for 8% of cases with a mean error of 0.02mm (maximum 0.5mm) – no error in transverse positioning Authors concluded that beginning with the mandible allows correction of sagittal split mistakes with the Le Fort 1 osteotomy |
No information |
| Ritto et al., 2014 [4] | Comparison of maxillary repositioning according to the operative sequence in vertical and sagittal dimensions | Semi-adjustable articulator planning with positioning maxillary model using a facebow to create an intermediate splint and on cephalometric prediction Measurement of maxillary central incisor position on cephalometric planning and immediate postoperative cephalometry |
N = 40 Female N = 23 Male N = 17 Maxillar-first group: N = 20 Female N = 9 Male N = 11 Mandible-first group: N = 20 Female N = 14 Male N = 6 |
No information | No statistically significant difference in vertical and sagittal dimensions on maxillary positioning | No information |
| Liebregts et al., 2017 [12,14] |
Assessment of the accuracy of jaws postoperative three-dimensional positioning in accordance with the virtually simulated position regarding to the operative sequence | Digital planning on CBCT performed 1 month prior to the surgery to design intermediate and final splints 4-year study: mandible-first group made up of patients operated between 2010 and 2012, and maxillary-first group included patients operated between 2012 and 2014 Comparison of jaw position between digital planning and postoperative CBCT at 1 week by superimposing bone surfaces and computing differences in translation and rotation of maxilla and mandible |
N = 116 Female N = 80 Male N = 36 Maxillar-first group: N = 58 Female N = 43 Male N = 15 Mean age 28.6±11 years Mandible-first group: N = 58 Female N = 37 Male N = 21 Mean age 27.5±10.6 years |
No information | Greater accuracy of outcome with maxillary-first sequence, especially in the anteroposterior dimension, as condyles are only manipulated during mandibular synthesis, whereas they are handled twice in mandible-first sequence | One year follow-up with the study of difference in positioning between postoperative CBCT at 1 week and CBCT at 1 year on 106 patients: comparable skeletal recurrence between the 2 groups |
| Salmen et al., 2018 [13] | Evaluation of surgical position according to the surgical sequence to correct maxillary vertical excess | Articulator-based planning using a semi- adjustable articulator in centric relation (without specifying recording technique) for intermediate and final splints design Comparison of vertical and horizontal position on preoperative simulation and 30 days postoperative cephalometrics |
N = 32 vertical maxillary excess Maxillar-first group: N = 16 Female N = 10 Male N = 6 Mean age 27 years Mandible-first group: N = 16 Female N = 9 Male N = 7 Mean age 28 years |
No information | Adequate clinical accuracy of the 2 sequences with better precision in vertical position of the maxilla with maxilla-first sequence Maxilla-first group: better accuracy of A point and maxillary incisor vertical position more posterior pogonion position Mandible-first group: better accuracy of pogonion position lower position of posterior nasal spine and A point |
|
| Stokbro et al., 2019 [15] | Explore whether the theorical advantages of using the mandible-first procedure were supported by clinical data | Retrospective investigation on a cohort compiled from 3 published retrospective studies | N = 145 Female N = 99 Male N = 46 Mean age 28 years |
No information | Overall surgical precision: maxilla-first sequence: position closer to planning mandible-first sequence: position more posterior than planned Accuracy of clockwise and counter-clockwise rotation of maxilla-mandibular complex: no statistically significant change between the 2 sequences, but : maxilla-first sequence increased in accuracy for clockwise rotation mandible-first sequence increased in accuracy during anti-clockwise rotation |
No information |
| Borikanphanitphaisan et al., 2021 [16] | Assessment of the accuracy of postoperative jaws positioning with the use of intermediate splints according to the operative sequence in all three dimensions | Digital planning on CBCT taken 1 month before the intervention in natural head position Determination of the surgical sequence based on the principle of avoiding mandibular opening at the intermediate stage: mandible-first if maxillary lowering and counter-clockwise rotation of the maxilla-mandibular complex Comparison of jaws position between digital planning and postoperative CBCT at 1 week by superimposing bone surfaces by an author who did not know the sequencing group using linear and angular measurements based on craniofacial landmarks to highlight discrepancies in translational and rotational movements |
N = 57 Maxilla-first group: N = 31 Female N = 20 Male N = 11 Mean age 24.6±5.9 years Class III N = 26 Class II N = 4 Asymmetry N = 1 Mandible-first group: N = 26 Female N = 17 Male N = 9 Mean age 26.4±7.4 years |
No information | Ovarall accuracy: no statistically significant difference (P=0.084) Accuracy in vertical dimension: statistically significant difference (P=0.014) with mandible-first sequence more accurate than maxilla-first Accuracy in transverse and sagittal dimensions: no statistical difference Splint thickness: no effect of thickness on overall accuracy, only sagittal control of central incisors improved by splint thickness |
No information |
| Hamdy and Elfaramawi, 2021 [17] | Stability of surgical results evaluation according to surgical sequence for Class III treatment | Digital planning on CBCT to design the splints Registration of centric relation with occlusal was, occlusion scanning with optical impression integrated into the planning software with the CBCT (no precision on possible condyle repositioning) Software randomization, blind patient Comparison of jaw position at 1 week and 6 months postoperatively by comparing bone and skin cephalometric points |
N = 24 class III Age between 18 and 26 years Maxilla-first group: N = 12 Female N = 7 Male N = 5 Mandible-first group: N = 12 Female N = 4 Male N = 8 |
No information | Bone points: statistically significant differences between the two groups Soft tissues points: no statistically significant difference between the two groups except for soft tissue inclination (nose-lip relationship) Patient satisfaction similar between the 2 groups No difference in results stability according to the operative sequence |
No information |
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.