HOME HELP FEEDBACK SUBSCRIPTIONS ARCHIVE SEARCH TABLE OF CONTENTS		QUICK SEARCH:   [advanced] Author: Keyword(s): Year:  Vol:  Page:

This Article Full Text Full Text (PDF) Alert me when this article is cited Alert me if a correction is posted Services Email this article to a friend Similar articles in this journal Similar articles in PubMed Alert me to new issues of the journal Download to citation manager Citing Articles Citing Articles via Google Scholar Google Scholar Articles by Bamber, M. A. Articles by Nacher, C. Search for Related Content PubMed PubMed Citation Articles by Bamber, M. A. Articles by Nacher, C.

A Validation of Two Orthognathic Model Surgery Techniques

Department of Oral and Maxillofacial Surgery, Eastman Dental Institute for Oral Health Care, Sciences, University College London, UK

Dr M. Anwar Bamber, Department of Oral and Maxillofacial Surgery, Eastman Dental and University College London Hospitals, 256 Grays Inn Road, London WC1X 8LD, UK. Tel/Fax: 0171 9151226. E-mail: A.Bamber{at}eastman.ucl.ac.uk.

Abstract

In order to create an evidence-based orthognathic surgery planning protocol, an investigation of two popular model surgery techniques, the Lockwood keyspacer and the Eastman anatomically-orientated system was carried. This determined (a) the accuracy of positioning of the maxillary cast according to the prescribed treatment plan and (b) the relocation of the maxilla after a simulated Le Fort I down fracture osteotomy using the intermediate wafer as a guide. Fifteen patients—five Class II division 1, five Class II division 2, and five Class III—were included in the study. All the measurements were taken with Erickson's vertically mounted electronic calliper and variations from the treatment plan were analysed.

The mean model surgery positioning errors ± SD (mm) were: (i) vertical plane—Lockwood –0•8 ± 1•6 and Eastman 0•00 ± 1•0 (P = 0•0001); (ii) anteroposterior plane—Lockwood 1•2 ± 1•8 and Eastman –0•1 ± 1•4 (P = 0•05); and (iii) transverse plane—Lockwood 0•9 ± 0•9 and Eastman 1•0 ± 0•9 (P = 0•34).

After the simulated osteotomy, the mean errors ± SD were: (i) vertical plane—Lockwood –0•5 ± 1•5 and Eastman 0•3 ± 1•1 (P = 0•001); (ii) in anteroposterior plane—Lockwood 0•8 ± 2•0 and Eastman 0•7 ± 1•0 (P = 0•89); and (iii) transverse plane—Lockwood 0•8 ± 0•6 and Eastman 0•7 ± 0•5 (P = 0•83).

The Eastman technique was relatively better especially in the vertical plane. The variations from the treatment plan were on the whole anatomically small, but in some cases could be clinically significant.

Key words: Model surgery errors, Orthognathic work-up, Simulated osteotomy errors.