Skip to main page content
U.S. flag

An official website of the United States government

Dot gov

The .gov means it’s official.
Federal government websites often end in .gov or .mil. Before sharing sensitive information, make sure you’re on a federal government site.

Https

The site is secure.
The https:// ensures that you are connecting to the official website and that any information you provide is encrypted and transmitted securely.

Access keys NCBI Homepage MyNCBI Homepage Main Content Main Navigation
. 2019 Nov-Dec;30(8):2479-2482.
doi: 10.1097/SCS.0000000000005916.

An Objective Assessment of Orthognathic Surgery Patients

Affiliations

An Objective Assessment of Orthognathic Surgery Patients

Ladan Eslamian et al. J Craniofac Surg. 2019 Nov-Dec.

Abstract

Objectives: To retrospectively assess malocclusions, skeletal relationships and the functional needs of orthognathic patients treated in a University teaching hospital.

Subjects and methods: This study used clinical records of 100 consecutive patients [51 female, 49 males, mean (SD) age =21.5 (2.71) years] who had orthognathic surgery in a Shahid Beheshti University of Medical Sciences affiliated hospital (9/2014-7/2017). Malocclusion type (incisor classification), sagittal skeletal pattern (ANB angle), index of orthognathic functional treatment need (IOFTN) score, and osteotomy type were recorded.

Results: Overall, 66%, 31%, and 3% had Class III, II, and Class I malocclusions, respectively. Similarly, 68% and 32% had Class III and II sagittal skeletal relationships, respectively. Overall, 95% of patients scored IOFTN 4 or 5. The most prevalent IOFTN score were 4.3 (37%), 5.3 (16%), 5.4 (16%), and 4.2 (10%). There were no gender differences (P >0.05) for the distribution of malocclusions, sagittal skeletal relationships, different IOFTN scores, or when IOFTN scores were re-grouped (5, 4, and ≤3). When IOFTN scores were re-grouped (5, 4, and ≤3), they were equally distributed among patients with Class II or III skeletal relationships (P >0.05), but when the authors looked at different malocclusions, there were significant differences in IOFTN score distribution (P = 0.006). The use of genioplasty (4%) or distraction osteogenesis (2%) was limited. Single jaw surgery of either maxilla or mandible was used in 15% and 22% of patients, respectively. About 63% had undergone double-jaw surgery.

Conclusion: Retrospective assessment using IOFTN identified 95% of patients as having great and very great functional needs, but prospective studies using IOFTN is needed to assess the need for orthognathic surgery. Class III malocclusions and Class III sagittal skeletal relationships were more common in this sample.

PubMed Disclaimer