Treatment outcome in orthognathic surgery—A prospective randomized blinded case-controlled comparison of planning accuracy in computer-assisted two- and three-dimensional planning techniques (part II)

Abstract

PurposeThe aim of the present study was to compare the accuracy of two-dimensional (2D) and three-dimensional (3D) prediction methods. The hypothesis was that a 3D technique would give a more accurate outcome of the postoperative result. Material and methodsPatients with severe class III occlusion were included and planed with both a 2D and 3D prediction technique. They were there after randomly subdivided into a control (2D) and test (3D) group and treated according to the technique randomized for. Cephalometric measurements from 2D and 3D predictions were compared with 12-month follow-up respectively. Together with an analysis of tracing error, placements of 3580 cephalometric markers, 2460 measurements, 680 intra-individual analyses and 1200 preop/postop comparisons were performed in 57 individuals. ResultsStatistically significant differences for accuracy between the two groups were seen for 11/NSL-112/NSL2 and for A-A2 (p < 0.05). Both groups showed a high level of accuracy for SNA and SNB. The test group also showed a relatively high level of accuracy for 11/NSL and for the A-point. No prediction method achieves a perfect accuracy. As expected from this, measuring accuracy within each group showed statistically significant difference for all markers and cephalometric measurements (p < 0.001). Mandibular markers showed greater differences than maxillary markers. ConclusionThe present study indicates an equal high accuracy in predicting facial outcome for both studied techniques. However, in patients with asymmetry the three-dimensional technique has an obvious advantage.