This article has Open Peer Review reports available.
The University Münster model surgery system for Orthognathic surgery. Part I – The idea behind
© Ehmer et al.; licensee BioMed Central Ltd. 2012
Received: 21 December 2011
Accepted: 7 March 2012
Published: 14 May 2012
We describe a procedure for diagnosis and planning for orthognatic surgery based on international standards. A special 2D planning based on lateral cephalograms (Axis Orbital Marker Lines System) realize a transmission to the SAM 2P articulator (3D) by means of the Axis Orbital Plane.
Former intraoperative measurement of the average height of the LeFort I osteotomy plane relative to the molar occlusal plane allow to construct a virtual osteotomy plane in the lateral cephalogram. This is the basis for the development of the Axis Orbital Marker Lines System (AO-MLS).
The AO-MLS is presented graphically, and in detail, with construction guidelines. The system could be integrated into various lateral cephalometric analysis- and surgical prediction schemes. It forms the basis for a standardized transfer of the 2D planning to the 3D planning in the articulator, and vice versa. This procedure makes it possible to generate surgical planning protocols based on the model surgery, which represent the dislocations in the proximity of the real osteotomy planes.
The Axis Orbital Marker Lines System (software component) in conjunction with the University Münster Model Surgery System (hardware system) increases the predictability of model operations in orthognathic surgery.
The psycho-social status of the patient is being assessed preliminarily by means of a psychological screening interview (PSI)[9–12], following a “traffic-light”- approach: a positive status comprises mainly of answers which are highlighted in green, whereas the indication for a more detailed psychological evaluation is given by answers mainly from the red highlighted spectrum.
The medical indications and contra-indications and the combined pre- and post-surgical orthodontic sequences, as well as informing the patient about the necessary treatment and the risks, will be discussed in an interdisciplinary initial appointment, and also during a follow-up appointment, where modifications can be made according to the case.
Once the pre-surgical orthodontic treatment has been deemed to be satisfactory, the next step is to obtain the necessary records for the final surgical planning: dental casts, mounted in a semi-adjustable articulator (SAM 2P, Schul-Artikulator-München, SAM Präzisionstechnik, Gauting, Germany), using a face-bow-transfer, panoramic x-rays, lateral cephalograms, fotos, and if indicated posterior-anterior cephalograms, cone beam computer tomograms, hand wrist x-rays.
Compared to international literature, there are some differences in the spectrum of surgical techniques, due to specific techniques that are preferred in Muenster as well as ethnic differences in malocclusion prevalence.
In the process, an Axis Orbital Marker Lines System (AO-MLS), which could be integrated in every planning process, and a SAM 2P articulator compatible model surgery system, have been combined.
From former intraoperative measurements of the average height of the LeFort I osteotomy plane relative to the molar occlusal plane, allows to construct a virtual osteotomy plane in the lateral cephalogram (ML-2). This is the basis for the development of the Axis Orbital Marker Line System (AO-MLS).
Results and discussion
The Axis Orbital Plane is defined as being the common reference plane for the lateral cephs and the articulator-based model surgery in a couple of schemes[17–19]. However, in the Münster model scheme, it has been further developed into a structured combination between 2D and 3D predictions in the model surgery.
Based on this reference plane, the custom software was developed using the Axis Orbital Marker Lines System (AO-MLS). The AO-MLS could be be integrated into every cephalometric analysis-prediction system. When transferring the data, it is imperative to maintain a 1:1 ratio, which is a precondition in every prediction system.
The eight planes are being transferred to the cephalometric tracing and to an overlayed second tracing (template) either by hand or by a computer analysis software. The templates for the upper and lower jaws (bimaxillary surgery) will be moved to the sagittal and vertical targets. In monognathic surgery this will be done isolated for the upper or lower part.
The displacements in the region of the osteotomy can now be measured with some accuracy by means of the marker lines. The difference between the MLs on the ceplalometric tracing to the overlayed template represent the skeletal effects. The difference of the dental landmarks represent the dental displacements. Comparing the dental and skeletal movements could be helpful in determining rotational effects or for borderline movements.
Additionally, it is possible for example to visually point out different rotations in the dental region and in the region of osteotomy. During the procedure of planning, we can identify desired or unfavorable rotations and subsequently check their feasibility in the three-dimensional planning.
The individual user may modify this system of lines, maintaining the basic principle.
The AO-MLS (software component) in combination with the KD-MMS (hardware system) increases the predictability of model operations in orthognathic surgery.
We thank Dr. Jens Reimann for reviewing the English version of this article.
- Arnett GW, Mc Laughlin RP: Facial and Dental Planning for Orthodontists and Oral Surgeons. 2004, St. Louis: Mosby, 1-320.Google Scholar
- Epker BN, Stella JP, Fisch LC: Essentials of treatment planning. 1995, Mosby: Dentofacial Deformities Integrated Orthodontic and Surgical Correction, 72-139. Volume IGoogle Scholar
- Epker BN, Stella JP, Fisch LC: Class III dentofacial deformities secondary to mandibular prognathism. 1996, Mosby: Dentofacial Deformities Integrated Orthodontic and Surgical Correction, 570-1183. Volume IIGoogle Scholar
- Epker BN, Stella JP, Fisch LC: Class III dentofacial deformities secondary to maxillary deficiency. 1996, Mosby: Dentofacial Deformities Integrated Orthodontic and Surgical Correction, 700-809. Volume IIGoogle Scholar
- Epker BN, Stella JP, Fisch LC: Class III dentofacial deformities secondary to maxillary deficiency and mandibular prognathism. 1996, Mosby: Dentofacial Deformities Integrated Orthodontic and Surgical Correction, 810-848. Volume IIGoogle Scholar
- Bell WH, Proffit WR, White RP: Surgical correction of dentofacial deformities. 1980, Philadelphia: W. B. Saunders CompanyGoogle Scholar
- Schwestka-Polly R, Kubein-Meesenburg D, Luhr HG: Results of the application of the Goettingen concept for three-dimensional repositioning of the maxilla in orthognathic surgery. Mund Kiefer Gesichtschir. 1999, 3: 123-130. 10.1007/s100060050114.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
- Proffit WR, White RP, Sarver DM: Diagnostic and Treatment Planning Approaches: Treatment Planning. 2003, Mosby: Contemporary Treatment of Dentofacial Deformity. Kapitel 6, 172-244.Google Scholar
- Ehmer U, Austermann KH: Die Rolle des Kieferorthopäden für die Motivation zu chirurgisch-kieferorthopädischen Therapiemaßnahmen. 1987, Fortschr: Kieferorthop, 246-253.Google Scholar
- Illigens AM: Prospektive und retrospektive Beurteilung psychosozialer Aspekte bei Patienen mit kieferorthopädisch-kieferchirurgischerTherapie. 1996, Münster: DissertationGoogle Scholar
- Hatch JP: Psychological function in orthognatic surgical patients before and after bilateral sagittal split osteotomy with rigid and wire fixation. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop. 1999, 115: 536-543. 10.1016/S0889-5406(99)70276-3.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
- Flanary C in Bell Wh: The psychology of Appearance and the psychological Impact of surgical Alteration of the Face. 1992, Philadelphia: WB Saunders Company, 2-21. Volume IGoogle Scholar
- Richmond S, Roberts CT, Andrews M: Use of the Index of Orthodontic Treatment Need (IOTN) in assessing the need for orthodontic treatment pre- and Post-appliance thrapy. Br J Orthod. 1994, 21: 175-184.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
- Joda TA, Ehmer U:Die Fernröntgenfrontalaufnahme. Analyse von Indikation, Häufigkeit und Relation in der kieferorthopädischen Röntgendiagnostik für den Zeitraum von 1993 bis 2001. Zahnmed Diss. 2004: 1-106.Google Scholar
- Ehmer U, Röhling J, Dörr-Neudeck K, Becker R: A c alibrated double cast method for model simulation in surgical orthodontics. Dtsch Z Mund Kiefer Gesichtschir. 1987, 11: 59-66.PubMedGoogle Scholar
- Ehmer U, Röhling J, Dörr-Neudeck K, Becker R: Calibrated double split cast simulations for orthognathic surgery. Int J Adult Orthod and Orthognath Surg. 1989, 4: 223-227.Google Scholar
- Erickson KL, Bell WH, Goldsmith DH: Analytical Model Surgery. Modern Practice in Orthognathic and Reconstructive Surgery. Volume 1. 1992, W. B. Saunders Company, 155-216.Google Scholar
- Steinhäuser E, Janson I: Behandlungsaufgaben, Therapieplanung. 1988, Quintessenz Verlags-GmbH: Kieferorthopädische Chirurgie Band I Kapitel 4, 125-188.Google Scholar
- Krenkel C, Lixl G: Model surgical apparatus for planning and simulation of maxillary and mandibular osteotomies. Zahnärtzl Prax. 1991, 42: 471-473.Google Scholar
This article is published under license to BioMed Central Ltd. This is an Open Access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/2.0), which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.