Three dimensional accuracy and stability of segmented Le Fort I osteotomy - a systematic review.

IF 3 2区 医学 Q2 DENTISTRY, ORAL SURGERY & MEDICINE
Oliver da Costa Senior, Marie Coppens, Reinhilde Jacobs, Eman Shaheen, Constantinus Politis
{"title":"Three dimensional accuracy and stability of segmented Le Fort I osteotomy - a systematic review.","authors":"Oliver da Costa Senior, Marie Coppens, Reinhilde Jacobs, Eman Shaheen, Constantinus Politis","doi":"10.1186/s13005-026-00625-x","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background: </strong>Segmental Le Fort I osteotomy has traditionally been regarded as less predictable and stable, a perception largely based on two-dimensional evaluation methods. Despite existing systematic reviews on clinical outcomes, a dedicated synthesis of three-dimensional assessments of surgical accuracy and postoperative stability is lacking.</p><p><strong>Purpose: </strong>This systematic review evaluated three-dimensional (3D) assessment methods and outcome of planning accuracy and postoperative stability in segmented Le Fort I osteotomies. The aim was to determine the reliability of 3D methods in capturing surgical accuracy and long-term skeletal stability.</p><p><strong>Study selection: </strong>Medline, Embase, Web of Science, and Cochrane were searched up to October 25, 2024. Eligible studies included randomized controlled trials, prospective or retrospective studies, or case series with > 5 patients reporting 3D evaluation of planning accuracy or stability. Exclusion criteria were systematic reviews, meta-analyses, single case reports, ex-vivo or animal studies, and studies involving syndromic patients, facial trauma, or prior maxillofacial surgery. Risk of bias and quality of evidence were assessed using the GRADE approach. Twenty-two studies met inclusion criteria: three randomized and nineteen non-randomized controlled trials. Fourteen assessed planning accuracy, five evaluated stability, and three examined both.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Twenty-two studies met the inclusion criteria and were included in the qualitative synthesis. Considerable methodological heterogeneity limited direct comparison and precluded meta-analysis. Overall, segmented Le Fort I osteotomy demonstrated clinically acceptable accuracy; however, certain movements-particularly transverse widening, advancement, and pitch-were more prone to underachievement, with discrepancies ranging from 0.77 to 1.41 mm, 0.55 to 2.69 mm, and 0.12° to 5.22°, respectively. During follow-up, transverse relapse was more pronounced at the dental level (0.39-1.41 mm) compared to skeletal changes (0.05-0.86 mm).</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>Segmented Le Fort I osteotomy shows reliable outcomes in 3D evaluations, but some maxillary movements remain difficult to achieve and maintain such as advancement and pitch. Standardized, voxel-based 3D assessment protocols are recommended to improve comparability and strengthen the evidence base. (PROSPERO registration: CRD42018111854).</p>","PeriodicalId":12994,"journal":{"name":"Head & Face Medicine","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":3.0000,"publicationDate":"2026-06-26","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC13573476/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Head & Face Medicine","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1186/s13005-026-00625-x","RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"DENTISTRY, ORAL SURGERY & MEDICINE","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Background: Segmental Le Fort I osteotomy has traditionally been regarded as less predictable and stable, a perception largely based on two-dimensional evaluation methods. Despite existing systematic reviews on clinical outcomes, a dedicated synthesis of three-dimensional assessments of surgical accuracy and postoperative stability is lacking.

Purpose: This systematic review evaluated three-dimensional (3D) assessment methods and outcome of planning accuracy and postoperative stability in segmented Le Fort I osteotomies. The aim was to determine the reliability of 3D methods in capturing surgical accuracy and long-term skeletal stability.

Study selection: Medline, Embase, Web of Science, and Cochrane were searched up to October 25, 2024. Eligible studies included randomized controlled trials, prospective or retrospective studies, or case series with > 5 patients reporting 3D evaluation of planning accuracy or stability. Exclusion criteria were systematic reviews, meta-analyses, single case reports, ex-vivo or animal studies, and studies involving syndromic patients, facial trauma, or prior maxillofacial surgery. Risk of bias and quality of evidence were assessed using the GRADE approach. Twenty-two studies met inclusion criteria: three randomized and nineteen non-randomized controlled trials. Fourteen assessed planning accuracy, five evaluated stability, and three examined both.

Results: Twenty-two studies met the inclusion criteria and were included in the qualitative synthesis. Considerable methodological heterogeneity limited direct comparison and precluded meta-analysis. Overall, segmented Le Fort I osteotomy demonstrated clinically acceptable accuracy; however, certain movements-particularly transverse widening, advancement, and pitch-were more prone to underachievement, with discrepancies ranging from 0.77 to 1.41 mm, 0.55 to 2.69 mm, and 0.12° to 5.22°, respectively. During follow-up, transverse relapse was more pronounced at the dental level (0.39-1.41 mm) compared to skeletal changes (0.05-0.86 mm).

Conclusion: Segmented Le Fort I osteotomy shows reliable outcomes in 3D evaluations, but some maxillary movements remain difficult to achieve and maintain such as advancement and pitch. Standardized, voxel-based 3D assessment protocols are recommended to improve comparability and strengthen the evidence base. (PROSPERO registration: CRD42018111854).

分段式Le Fort I型截骨术的三维精度和稳定性综述。
背景:节段性Le Fort I截骨术传统上被认为是不太可预测和稳定的,这种看法主要基于二维评估方法。尽管已有对临床结果的系统评价,但缺乏对手术准确性和术后稳定性的三维评估的专门综合。目的:本系统综述评价分段Le Fort I型截骨术中规划精度和术后稳定性的三维(3D)评估方法和结果。目的是确定3D方法在获取手术精度和长期骨骼稳定性方面的可靠性。研究选择:检索截止到2024年10月25日的Medline、Embase、Web of Science和Cochrane。符合条件的研究包括随机对照试验,前瞻性或回顾性研究,或bbb50例患者报告3D评估计划准确性或稳定性的病例系列。排除标准为系统评价、荟萃分析、单例报告、离体或动物研究,以及涉及综合征患者、面部创伤或既往颌面手术的研究。使用GRADE方法评估偏倚风险和证据质量。22项研究符合纳入标准:3项随机对照试验和19项非随机对照试验。14个评估规划准确性,5个评估稳定性,3个评估两者。结果:22项研究符合纳入标准,纳入定性综合。相当大的方法学异质性限制了直接比较并排除了meta分析。总体而言,分段式Le Fort I型截骨术显示出临床可接受的准确性;然而,某些运动——尤其是横向加宽、前进和俯仰——更容易表现不佳,差异分别为0.77 ~ 1.41 mm、0.55 ~ 2.69 mm和0.12°~ 5.22°。随访期间,与骨骼变化(0.05-0.86 mm)相比,横向复发在牙齿水平(0.39-1.41 mm)更为明显。结论:分段式Le Fort I型截骨术在三维评价中具有可靠的效果,但上颌的一些运动仍然难以实现和维持,如前移和俯仰。建议采用标准化的、基于体素的三维评估方案,以提高可比性并加强证据基础。(普洛斯彼罗注册号:CRD42018111854)。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
Head & Face Medicine
Head & Face Medicine DENTISTRY, ORAL SURGERY & MEDICINE-
CiteScore
4.70
自引率
3.30%
发文量
32
审稿时长
>12 weeks
期刊介绍: Head & Face Medicine is a multidisciplinary open access journal that publishes basic and clinical research concerning all aspects of cranial, facial and oral conditions. The journal covers all aspects of cranial, facial and oral diseases and their management. It has been designed as a multidisciplinary journal for clinicians and researchers involved in the diagnostic and therapeutic aspects of diseases which affect the human head and face. The journal is wide-ranging, covering the development, aetiology, epidemiology and therapy of head and face diseases to the basic science that underlies these diseases. Management of head and face diseases includes all aspects of surgical and non-surgical treatments including psychopharmacological therapies.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:604180095
Book学术官方微信
小红书