Orthognathic surgery is used to modify anomalies in maxillomandibular position; this process can significantly affect the anatomy of the airway and cause functional changes. This study aims to define the impact of mandibular maxillary movement on the airway of subjects with dentofacial deformity. A retrospective study was conducted on subjects with Angle class II (CII group) and Angle class III (CIII group) dentofacial deformities. The subjects were treated by bimaxillary surgery; for all of them, planning was performed with software and 3D printing. Cone beam computed tomography (CBCT) was obtained 21 days before surgery and 6 months after surgery and was used for planning and follow-up with the same conditions and equipment. Was used the superimposition technique to obtain the maximum and minimum airway areas, and total airway volume. The data were analyzed with the Shapiro-Wilk test and Student’s t-test, while Spearman's test was used to correlate the variables, considering a value of p<0.05. Seventy-six subjects aged 18 to 55 years (32.38 ± 10.91) were included: 46 subjects were in CII group, treated with a maxillo-mandibular advancement, and 30 subjects were in the CIII group, treated with a maxillary advancement and a mandibular setback. In CII group, a maxillary advancement of +2.45 mm (±0.88) and a mandibular advancement of +4.25 mm (±1.25) were observed, with a significant increase in all the airway records. In the CIII group, a maxillary advancement of +3.42 mm (±1.25) and a mandibular setback of -3.62 mm (±1.18) was noted, with no significant changes in the variables measured for the airway (p>0.05). It may be concluded that maxillo mandibular advancement is an effective procedure to augment the airway area and volume in the CII group. On the other hand, in subjects with mandibular prognathism and Angle class III operated with the maxillary advancement and mandibular setback lower than 4 mm it is possible to not reduce the areas and volume in the airway.

The use of miniplates for stabilizing bones after orthognathic surgeries, has become increasingly popular for their effectiveness in ensuring stability and promoting swift recovery. However, the post-surgical fate of these miniplates remains a subject of contention among surgeons. Some advocate for their removal, while others suggest leaving them in place. The aims of this study, is to evaluate the incidence, causes, and potential risk factors associated with the removal of miniplates in orthognathic surgeries. A comprehensive meta-analysis was conducted by reviewing studies from various databases like PubMed, Google Scholar, Research Gate, Embase, and Scopus, focusing on publications from 1989 to 2023. Ten studies encompassing a total of 1603 patients which conformed to the inclusion criteria were selected and included in the meta-analysis. With M:F ratio range from 4:1 to 109:141. Total number of miniplates inserted was 5595, and total number of miniplates removed were 294 (5.3%). The most common reasons for miniplates removal were, infection was reported in 161 cases (2.9%), followed by miniplates exposure (34 cases, 0.6%) and palpable plates (23 cases 0.4%). Other indications included pain, patient’s preference, and temperature sensitivity. Relatively less common reasons that resulted in miniplates removal include, sinusitis, second surgery and dental pathology. The mean duration of miniplates removal was 5.5 months with the majority of miniplates (56.1%) were removed from the mandible compared to maxilla. In conclusion, this meta-analysis underscores the importance of miniplate removal in cases where hardware causes diverse complications and physical discomfort. The primary reasons for miniplates removal were infections and plates exposure, with the mandible being the most common site for removal. These findings emphasize the need for continued monitoring to assess the fate of miniplates in orthognathic surgery and provide valuable insights for future clinical decision-making.

Introduction: maxillary hypoplasia and mandibular asymmetry may be corrected with orthognathic surgery at the completion of growth. Many patients require segmental Le Fort I osteotomies to obtain the most stable results. Unfortunately, if Invisalign is chosen for pre-surgical preparation, ClinCheck © software does not allow for prediction when these complex surgeries are planned. The objective of this paper was to show the potential of aligners beyond its software in most complex cases like multiple-piece maxillary osteotomies in cleft and non-cleft patients. Method: Thirteen patients who underwent pre-surgical treatment with clear aligners-Invisalign (study group) were matched in terms of diagnosis, surgical procedure, and orthodontic complexity with thirteen patients treated using fixed appliances (control group). A technique based on simple superimposition was devised to enhance the software for creating a suitable occlusion for segmental pre-surgical treatments. Virtual curves following the lower arch were employed to guide the correct pre-surgical positions of the upper teeth. The amount of impressions required in both groups to achieve satisfactory pre-surgical alignment of the segmented arches was compared. Results: one or no refinement phase were needed in the Invisalign group to reach an acceptable pre-surgical occlusion while the amount of pre-surgical impressions taken in order to reach adequate coordination with fixed appliance treatment was slightly higher. The average overall treatment duration did not show a statistically significant variation between the groups. Conclusions: it appears that clear aligner could serve as an effective treatment for individuals with skeletal discrepancies, including cleft and craniofacial anomalies, necessitating segmental Le Fort I osteotomies when aided by the suggested superimposition approach during digital pre-surgical movement simulations. More sophisticated softwares will certainly be implemented in the future.

This comprehensive review explores the advancements in Orthognathic and Oral Maxillofacial Surgery, focusing on the integration of 3D Printing and Virtual Surgical Planning (VSP). Traditional surgical methods, while effective, come with inherent risks and complications, and can lead to variability in outcomes due to the reliance on the surgeon's skill and experience. The shift towards patient-centric care necessitates personalized surgical methods, which can be achieved through advanced technology. The amalgamation of 3D printing and VSP revolutionizes surgical planning and implementation by providing tactile 3D models for visualization and planning, and accurately designed surgical guides for execution. This convergence of digital planning and physical modeling facilitates a more predictable, personalized, and precise surgical process. However, the adoption of these technologies presents challenges, including the need for extensive software training and the steep learning curve associated with computer-aided design programs. Despite these challenges, the integration of 3D printing and VSP paves the way for advanced patient care in orthognathic and oral maxillofacial surgery.

(1) Background: In orthognathic surgery, segmental Le Fort I osteotomies are a valuable method to correct maxillary deformities or transversal discrepancies. However, these procedures are technically challenging, and osteosynthesis can be prone to error. (2) Methods: In this retrospective, monocentric cohort study, patients were enrolled who underwent a virtually planned segmental maxillary osteotomy during their combined treatment. Positioning and osteosynthesis were achieved by either a 3D-printed splint and conventional mini plates or Patient-Specific Implants (PSI). The preoperative CT data, virtual planning data, and postoperative CBCT data were segmented. The deviation of all segments from the desired virtually planned position was measured using the analysis function of the IPS Case Designer. (3) Results: 28 Patients in the PSI Group and 22 in the conventional groups could be included. The PSI group showed significantly lower deviation from the planned position anteroposteriorly (-0.63±1.62mm vs. -1.3±2.54mm) and craniocaudally (-1.39±1.59mm vs. -2.7±3.1mm). For rotational deviations, the Pitch (0.64±2.59° vs. 2.91±4.08°) as well as the inward rotation of the lateral segments was positively influenced by PSI. (4). Conclusions: The presented data show that patient-specific osteosynthesis significantly reduces deviations from the preoperative plan in virtually planned cases. Especially transversal expansions and vertical positioning can be addressed better.