Skip to main content

Advertisement

SpringerLink
Log in

Evaluation of Sagittal Curving Osteotomy vs Conventional Advancement Genioplasty in Retrogenia Patients: a Randomized Control Trial

  • Original Article
  • Published:
Journal of Maxillofacial and Oral Surgery Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Background and Objectives

With increasing aesthetic awareness, in addition to the forehead, nose, and cheekbone prominence, the chin nowadays is seen as one of the most important parts of the facial skeleton. Position of the chin has a strong influence on the assessment of the facial harmony; its different types and forms dominate the appearance. Furthermore, the expression of the chin is equated with character traits, and thus, it is an important component of the profile forms. Genioplasty is a routine procedure for the correction of aesthetic and functional deformity of the chin region. It is therefore one of the contour-enhancing surgical methods. The purpose of the present study is to study the versatility of sagittal curving osteotomy for advancement genioplasty as an alternative to conventional technique.

Materials and Methods

A total of 24 subjects were enrolled for the study who were randomly distributed into two groups: group 1(n−12) comprising of patients in whom sagittal curving osteotomy was done and group 2 (n- 12) comprising of patients in whom conventional osteotomy was done. Neurosensory disturbances and hard and soft tissue relapse were compared between the two groups.

Results

On comparison of all the variables, it was found that the conventional osteotomy technique had more hard tissue relapse and more neurosensory disturbance as compared to sagittal curving osteotomy technique.

Conclusion

Results of this study suggest that the use of sagittal curving osteotomy may be helpful in reducing postoperative neurosensory disturbances and relapses following genioplasty. Hence, it is recommended that sagittal curving osteotomy can be used as an alternative osteotomy technique for advancement genioplasty.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1
Fig. 2
Fig. 3
Fig. 4
Fig. 5
Fig. 6
Fig. 7
Fig. 8
Fig. 9
Fig. 10
Fig. 11
Fig. 12
Fig. 13
Fig. 14
Fig. 15
Fig. 16
Fig. 17
Fig. 18
Fig. 19
Fig. 20
Fig. 21

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. Patnaik VVG, Rajan S, Sanju B (2003) Anatomy of ‘a beautiful face & smile.’ J Anat Soc India 52(1):74–80

    Google Scholar 

  2. Peck H, Peck S (1969) A concept of facial esthetics. Angle Orthod 40:284

    Google Scholar 

  3. Janson HW (1963) History of art. Harry N. Abrams Inc, New York, p 40

    Google Scholar 

  4. Arroyoa HH, Olivetti IP, Lima LF, Juradoc JRP (2016) Clinical evaluation for chin augmentation: literature review and algorithm proposal. Braz J Otorhinolaryngol 82:596–601

    Article  Google Scholar 

  5. Guyuron B (1992) Genioplasty. Little, Brown, Boston

    Google Scholar 

  6. Aufrecht G (1934) Combined nasal plastic and chin plastik correction of microgenia by osteocartilaginous transplant from large hump nose. Am J Surg 22:292

    Google Scholar 

  7. Hofer O (1942) Die operative Behandlung der alveolärenRetraktion des Unterkiefers und ihreAnwendungsmöglichkeitfürPrognathie und Mikrogenie. Dtsch Zahn Mund Kieferheilk 9:121

    Google Scholar 

  8. Precious DS, Delaire J (1985) Correction of anterior mandibular vertical excess: the functional genioplasty. Oral Surg Oral Med Oral Pathol 59(3):229–235

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  9. Cadogan J, Bennun I (2011) Face value: an exploration of the psychological impact of orthognathic surgery. Br J Oral Maxillofac Surg 49(5):376–380

    Article  Google Scholar 

  10. Segner D, Höltje WJ (1991) Long-term results after genioplasty [in German]. FortschrKieferorthop 52(5):282–288

    CAS  Google Scholar 

  11. Shaughnessy S, Mobarak KA, Høgevold HE, Espeland L (2006) Long-term skeletal and soft-tissue responses after advancement genioplasty. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop 130(1):8–17

    Article  Google Scholar 

  12. Lindquist C, George Obeid G (1988) Complications of genioplasty done alone or in combination with sagittal split-ramus osteotomy. Oral Surg Oral Med Oral Pathol 66:13–16

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  13. Defreitas CE, Ellis-iii E, Sinn DP (1992) A retrospective study of advancement genioplasty using a special bone plate. J Oral Maxillofac Surg 50:340–346

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  14. Strauss RA, Abubaker AO (2000) Genioplasty: a case for advancement osteotomy. J Oral Maxillofac Surg 58:783–787

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  15. Bell WH, Dann JJ (1973) Correction of dentofacial deformities by surgery in the anterior part of the jaws. Am J Orthodontist Dentofacial Orthopaedics 64(2):162–187

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  16. Busquets CJ, Sassouni V (1981) Changes in the integumental profile of the chin and lower lip after genioplasty. J Oral Surg 39(7):499–504

    CAS  Google Scholar 

  17. Gallagher DM, Bell WH, Storum KA (1984) Soft tissue changes associated with advancement genioplasty performed concomitantly with superior repositioning of the maxilla. J Oral Maxillofac Surg 42(4):238–242

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  18. Tulsane JF (1987) The overlapping bone flap genioplasty. J Craniomaxillofac Surg 15(4):214–221

    Article  Google Scholar 

  19. Park HS, Ellis E 3rd, Fonseca RJ, Reynolds ST, Mayo KH (1989) A retrospective study of advancement genioplasty. Oral Surg Oral Med Oral Pathol 67(5):481–489

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  20. Krekmanov L, Kahnberg KE (1992) Soft tissue response to genioplasty procedures. Br J Oral Maxillofac Surg 30(2):87–91

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  21. Polido WD, Bell WH (1993) Long-term osseous and soft tissue changes after large chin advancements. J Craniomaxillofac Surg 21(2):54–59

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  22. Ousterhout DK (1996) Sliding genioplasty: avoidind mental nerve injury. J Craniofac Surg 74:211

    Google Scholar 

  23. Guyot L, Layoun W, Richard O, Cheynet F, Gola R (2002) alteration of chin sensibility due to damage of the cutaneous cranch of the mylohyoid nerve during genioplasty. J Oral Maxillofac Surg 60:1371–1373

    Article  Google Scholar 

  24. Wolfe SA, Rivas-Torres MT, Marshall D (2006) The genioplasty and beyond: an end-game strategy for the multiply operated chin. Plast Reconstr Surg 60:1012–1017

    Google Scholar 

  25. Sarmento GS, Denadai R, Somensi RS, Giancolli AP, Junqueira JG, Neto et al (2013) Evaluation of neurosensory disturbance in patients with craniofacial syndrome subjected to horizontal chin advancement. Rev Bras Cir Plást 28(2):205–211

    Article  Google Scholar 

  26. Talebzadeh N, Pogrel MA (2001) Long-term hard and soft tissue relapse rate after genioplasty. Oral Surg Oral Med Oral Pathol Oral RadiolEndod 91(2):153–156

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  27. Veltkamp T, Buschang PH, English JD, Bates J, Schow SR (2002) Predicting lower lip and chin response to mandibular advancement and genioplasty. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop 122(6):627–634

    Article  Google Scholar 

  28. Seo K, Tanaka Y, Terumitsu M et al (2005) Characterization of different paresthesias following orthognathic surgery of the mandible. J Oral Maxillofac Surg 63:298

    Article  Google Scholar 

  29. Jaaskelainen SK, Peltola JK, Lehtinen R (1996) The mental nerve blink reflex in the diagnosis of lesions of the inferior alveolar nerve following orthognathic surgery of the mandible. Br J Oral Maxillofac Surg 34:87

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  30. Jaaskelainen SK, Teerijoki-Oksa T, Virtanen A et al (1951) Sensory regeneration following intraoperatively verified trigeminal nerve injury. Neurology 2004:62

    Google Scholar 

  31. Kobayashi A, Yoshimasu H, Kobayashi J et al (2006) Neurosensory alteration in the lower lip and chin area after orthognathic surgery: bilateral sagittal split osteotomy versus inverted L ramus osteotomy. J Oral Maxillofac Surg 64:778

    Article  Google Scholar 

  32. Schultze-Mosgau S, Erbe M, Rudolph D et al (1999) Prospective study on post-traumatic and postoperative sensory disturbances of the inferior alveolar nerve and infraorbital nerve in mandibular and midfacial fractures. J Craniomaxillofac Surg 27:86

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  33. Schultze-Mosgau S, Krems H, Ott R et al (2001) A prospective electromyographic and computer-aided thermal sensitivity assessment of nerve lesions after sagittal split osteotomy and Le Fort I osteotomy. J Oral Maxillofac Surg 59:128

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Sri Rajiv Gandhi College of Dental Science, Bengaluru, India

    Shikhar Aich, Ravalika Singarapu, Akshay Shetty, Kumari Rathna, Praveen Kumar Purvey & Akash Shaju

Authors
  1. Shikhar Aich
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Ravalika Singarapu
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Akshay Shetty
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Kumari Rathna
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  5. Praveen Kumar Purvey
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  6. Akash Shaju
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Shikhar Aich.

Additional information

Publisher's Note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Aich, S., Singarapu, R., Shetty, A. et al. Evaluation of Sagittal Curving Osteotomy vs Conventional Advancement Genioplasty in Retrogenia Patients: a Randomized Control Trial. J. Maxillofac. Oral Surg. 21, 1244–1258 (2022). https://doi.org/10.1007/s12663-021-01578-1

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s12663-021-01578-1

Keywords

Search

Navigation