Orthodontic-surgical treatment of Class III malocclusion with extraction of an impacted canine and multi-segmented maxillary surgery

Establishment of a treatment plan is based on efficacy and easy application by the clinician, and acceptance by the patient. Treatment of adult patients with Class III malocclusion might require orthognathic surgery, especially when the deformity is severe, with a significant impact on facial esthetics. Impacted teeth can remarkably influence treatment planning, which should be precise and concise to allow a reasonably short treatment time with low biologic cost. We report here the case of a 20-year-old man who had a skeletal Class III malocclusion and impaction of the maxillary right canine, leading to remarkable deviation of the maxillary midline; this was his chief complaint. Because of the severely deviated position of the impacted canine, treatment included extraction of the maxillary right canine and left first premolar for midline correction followed by leveling, alignment, correction of compensatory tooth positioning, and orthognathic surgery to correct the skeletal Class III malocclusion because of the severe maxillary deficiency. This treatment approach allowed correction of the maxillary dental midline discrepancy to the midsagittal plane and establishment of good occlusion and optimal esthetics. (Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop 2010;137:840-9)

Predictable drill-free screw positioning with a graduated 3-dimensional radiographic-surgical guide: A preliminary report

Introduction: Mini-implants are placed in restricted sites, requiring an accurate surgical technique. However, no systematic study has quantified technique accuracy to reliably predict the surgical risks. Therefore, a graduated 3-dimensional radiographic-surgical guide (G-RSG) was proposed, and its inaccuracy and risk index (RI) were estimated. Methods: The sample consisted of 6 subjects (4 male, 2 female), who used mini-implant anchorage. Ten drill-free screws (DFS) were placed by using the G-RSG. The central point of the mesiodistal septum width (SW) was the selected implant site on the presurgical radiograph. The distances between DFS and the adjacent teeth (5-DFS and 6-DFS) were measured to evaluate screw centralization and inaccuracy degree (ID). These distances were statistically compared by independent t tests, and inaccuracy was determined by the expression ID = (5-DFS-6-DFS)/2, which represents deviation of the mini-implant`s final position regarding the central point initially selected. Then SW, ID, and screw diameter (SO) were combined to estimate the surgical risk with RI expressed by RI = SO/SW-ID. Results: The 5-DFS and 6-DFS distances were not significantly different. The ID of the G-RSG was 0.17 mm. The low ID ensured a safe RI (<1) in spite of the restricted SW. Conclusions: The G-RSG accuracy allowed fine prediction of the final DFS position in the inter-radicular septum, with a low RI, which is a helpful tool to estimate surgical risks. (Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop 2009; 136: 722-35)