Automatic extraction of the mid-facial plane for cranio-maxillofacial surgery planning

Recently developed computer applications provide tools for planning cranio-maxillofacial interventions based on 3-dimensional (3D) virtual models of the patient's skull obtained from computed-tomography (CT) scans. Precise knowledge of the location of the mid-facial plane is important for the assessment of deformities and for planning reconstructive procedures. In this work, a new method is presented to automatically compute the mid-facial plane on the basis of a surface model of the facial skeleton obtained from CT. The method matches homologous surface areas selected by the user on the left and right facial side using an iterative closest point optimization. The symmetry plane which best approximates this matching transformation is then computed. This new automatic method was evaluated in an experimental study. The study included experienced and inexperienced clinicians defining the symmetry plane by a selection of landmarks. This manual definition was systematically compared with the definition resulting from the new automatic method: Quality of the symmetry planes was evaluated by their ability to match homologous areas of the face. Results show that the new automatic method is reliable and leads to significantly higher accuracy than the manual method when performed by inexperienced clinicians. In addition, the method performs equally well in difficult trauma situations, where key landmarks are unreliable or absent.

Long-term evaluation of Class II subdivision treatment with unilateral maxillary first molar extraction

OBJECTIVE To evaluate the long-term effects of asymmetrical maxillary first molar (M1) extraction in Class II subdivision treatment. MATERIALS AND METHODS Records of 20 Class II subdivision whites (7 boys, 13 girls; mean age, 13.0 years; SD, 1.7 years) consecutively treated with the Begg technique and M1 extraction, and 15 untreated asymmetrical Class II adolescents (4 boys, 11 girls; mean age, 12.2 years; SD, 1.3 years) were examined in this study. Cephalometric analysis and PAR assessment were carried out before treatment (T1), after treatment (T2), and on average 2.5 years posttreatment (T3) for the treatment group, and at similar time points and average follow-up of 1.8 years for the controls. RESULTS The adjusted analysis indicated that the maxillary incisors were 2.3 mm more retracted in relation to A-Pog between T1 and T3 (β  =  2.31; 95% CI; 0.76, 3.87), whereas the mandibular incisors were 1.3 mm more protracted (β  =  1.34; 95% CI; 0.09, 2.59), and 5.9° more proclined to the mandibular plane (β  =  5.92; 95% CI; 1.43, 10.41) compared with controls. The lower lip appeared 1.4 mm more protrusive relative to the subnasale-soft tissue-Pog line throughout the observation period in the treated adolescents (β  =  1.43; 95% CI; 0.18, 2.67). There was a significant PAR score reduction over the entire follow-up period in the molar extraction group (β  =  -6.73; 95% CI; -10.7, -2.7). At T2, 65% of the subjects had maxillary midlines perfectly aligned with the face. CONCLUSIONS Unilateral M1 extraction in asymmetrical Class II cases may lead to favorable occlusal outcomes in the long term without harming the midline esthetics and soft tissue profile.