Cranioorbital Morphology Caused by Coronal Ring Suture Synostosis.

BACKGROUND: Minor cranial sutural synostosis is currently regarded as a rare diagnosis. As clinical awareness grows, a greater number of cases are being documented. This study aims to describe the variants of unicoronal synostosis with regard to major and minor sutural involvement and secondary effects on cranial and orbital morphology. The information is aimed to improve clinical diagnosis and management. METHODS: A retrospective study was conducted collecting preoperative computed tomographic scans of patients diagnosed with unicoronal synostosis and listed for surgical interventions, identified from a craniofacial database. Within these patients, different synostotic variants were identified based on which suture was affected. Scans of normal pediatric skulls (trauma) were used for a control group. Computed tomographic scans were analyzed for sutural involvement, cranial base deflection, and ipsilateral and contralateral orbital height and width. One-way analysis of variance was used to detect differences between synostotic variants and controls. RESULTS: A total of 57 preoperative computed tomographic scans of patients with unicoronal synostosis were reviewed, in addition to 18 computed tomographic scans of normal skulls (control group). Four variants of unicoronal synostosis were identified: frontoparietal, frontosphenoidal, frontoparietal and frontosphenoidal, and frontosphenoidal and frontoparietal. The last two variants differ in their temporal involvement in the direction of sutural synostosis and ultimately cranial and orbital morphology. Three variants have been previously identified, but the fourth is presented for the first time. CONCLUSIONS: An understanding of the variants of unicoronal synostosis and their temporal relationships is integral for accurate clinical diagnosis and surgical correction. Recommendations for treatment are based on discrete changes in orbital morphology.

Experiences Of Individuals Concerning Combined Orthodontic and Orthognathic Surgical Treatment: A Qualitative Twitter Analysis.

OBJECTIVE: The aim of this qualitative study was to analyze the content of posts on Twitter in order to gain an in-depth understanding of patients' thoughts and experiences surrounding orthognathic surgical treatment. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Using the Twitter search function, with the keywords "jaw surgery," the 1,000 most recent posts on Twitter with relevance to a combined orthodontic and orthognathic surgical treatment were extracted. After applying relevant inclusion and exclusion criteria, the selected posts were analyzed using thematic analysis by 2 independent investigators. Distinct themes and subthemes were developed. RESULTS: A total of 689 posts were analyzed; the 3 main themes identified in relation to orthognathic surgery were preoperative engagement, postoperative difficulties, and posttreatment satisfaction. Twelve subthemes were also identified, expressing issues such as anticipation or apprehension of the surgical procedure, postoperative pain and edema, dietary restrictions and weight loss, paresthesia, depression, and satisfaction with improvements in appearance and self-confidence. The 6 terms most frequently used in tweets were "recovery," "braces," "swollen," "eat," "liquid diet," and "pain." CONCLUSIONS: The findings from the present study can increase the awareness of clinicians involved in the combined orthodontic and orthognathic surgical treatment of patients with dentofacial deformities, allowing them to better educate and counsel their patients throughout the entire treatment process.

Is Linear Advancement Related to Relapse in Unilateral Cleft Lip and Palate Orthognathic Surgery?

OBJECTIVE: To investigate the stability of major versus minor Le Fort I maxillary advancements in unilateral cleft lip and palate (UCLP) patients. DESIGN: A retrospective longitudinal study was undertaken on 30 nonsyndromic UCLP patients treated with the same protocol at The Hospital for Sick Children, Toronto, Canada. Patients were grouped into major and minor movement groups based on planned surgical advancement. Standard lateral cephalometric radiographs were taken preoperatively (T1), immediately postoperatively (T2), and at least 1 year postoperatively (T3). Skeletal and dental variables were measured using cephalometric analysis. Stability was compared between groups using repeated-measures analysis of variance. Linear regression analysis was used to assess the relationship between advancement and relapse for the entire study population. RESULTS: A mean maxillary advancement of 9.8 mm and 4.9 mm was seen for the major (n = 10) and minor (n = 20) movement groups, respectively. The mean skeletal horizontal relapse was 1.8 mm (18%) for the major advancement group and 1.5 mm (31%) for the minor advancement group. There was no significant difference in skeletal horizontal relapse between the groups (P > .05). The correlation coefficient (r) between linear horizontal advancement and relapse was calculated to be .31 (P > .05). Dental horizontal relapse was not significant for either the major or minor groups, and no significant difference was found between the groups (P > .05). CONCLUSION: Skeletal and dental relapse was found to be unrelated to the amount of maxillary linear advancement using conventional Le Fort I osteotomies in UCLP.

Single versus segmental maxillary osteotomies and long-term stability in unilateral cleft lip and palate related malocclusion.

PURPOSE: To investigate the stability of single-piece versus segmental (2-piece) maxillary advancement in patients with unilateral cleft lip and palate (UCLP) treated using conventional Le Fort I orthognathic surgery. PATIENTS AND METHODS: A retrospective study was undertaken in 30 patients with nonsyndromic UCLP treated with the same surgical and orthodontic protocol from 2002 through 2011. Standard lateral cephalometric radiographs were taken preoperatively, immediately postoperatively, and at least 1 year postoperatively. Patients were divided into single-piece and segmental Le Fort I groups based on planned surgical movement. Postoperative movements were compared between groups using repeated measures analysis of variance. RESULTS: The mean skeletal horizontal advancement was 7.3 and 7.5 mm in the single-piece and segmental groups, respectively. The skeletal horizontal relapse was 1.3 mm (18%) for the single-piece group and 1.9 mm (25%) for the segmental group. The skeletal surgical extrusion was 2.7 mm for the 2 groups. The skeletal vertical relapse was 0.6 mm (22%) and 1.5 mm (56%) for the single-piece and segmental groups, respectively. The mean dental horizontal postoperative movement was an advancement of 0.4 mm for the single-piece group and a relapse of 0.2 mm (3%) for the segmental group. The mean dental vertical relapse was 0.1 mm (4%) for the single-piece group and 0.3 mm (11%) for the segmental group. There was no statistically significant difference in relapse between the single-piece and segmental groups for all movements (P>.05). CONCLUSION: Skeletal and dental relapse was similar between single-piece and segmental maxillary advancements using conventional Le Fort I orthognathic surgery in patients with UCLP.