Scholarlink

Objective <p>This study aimed to explore sagittal and vertical hard tissue movement’s influence on sagittal soft tissue remodeling after orthodontic/orthognathic treatment and quantify maxillomandibular soft-to-hard tissue ratios (SHR).</p> Methods <p>A search of sagittal craniofacial SHR after orthodontic or orthognathic treatment was conducted through PubMed, Springer Link and ProQuest. NIH risk-of-bias evaluation, heterogeneity and sensitivity analyses were conducted. After selecting the most discussed and strongly correlated SHRs, we examined how sagittal and vertical hard tissue movements affect sagittal soft tissue movements. We then extracted SHRs, magnitudes, and directions of hard and soft tissue movements. SHRs were categorized into distinct groups via cluster analysis, and intergroup variations were evaluated. When significant differences were observed (<i>P</i> &lt; 0.05), a nonlinear curve was used to simulate the ratio; when no significant differences existed (<i>P</i> &gt; 0.05), a linear regression equation was applied.</p> Results <p>From 2081 original studies, 28 articles were included. The maxillary and mandibular SHRs were determined. Ls∶U1 exhibited differences with U1 movement changes: Ls:U1 = 0.63:1 (0&#xa0;mm &lt; U1 ≤ 3&#xa0;mm), 0.39:1 (3&#xa0;mm &lt; U1 ≤ 8&#xa0;mm). There were no significant differences among other SHRs of movement magnitudes and directions: (i) soft A point:A point = 1.07:1, (ii) labrale inferius:lower incisor tip = 0.93:1, (iii) soft B point:B point = 0.80:1, (iv) soft pogonion:pogonion = 0.82:1, (v) soft menton:menton = 0.94:1. Sensitivity tests confirmed stable outcomes; confounding factors and measurement repeatability could not be adjusted due to secondary analysis limitations.</p> Conclusions <p>Most sagittal hard and soft tissue movements exhibited a significant correlation, with the exception of B’:Pg and Prn:A. The craniofacial SHR can be influenced by the magnitude of maxillary or mandibular hard tissue movement, but not by different movement directions. Clinicians may select matched SHRs by landmarks and hard tissue displacement.</p>

错误：搜索内容不能为空，请输入英文关键词
错误：关键词超出字数限制，请精简
高级检索

Assessing the sagittal soft-to-hard tissue change of craniofacial morphology after orthodontic or orthognathic treatment

  • 期刊论文

  • 出版模式：

    开放获取

  • 发表日期：

    2026年8月5日

查看全文
  • Zixin Yan,
  • Yue Xu,
  • Ye Cao,
  • Han Bao,
  • Wenxiu Jiang,
  • Zhenwei Chen,
  • Yongchu Pan,
  • Bin Yan,
  • Luwei Liu

摘要

Objective

This study aimed to explore sagittal and vertical hard tissue movement’s influence on sagittal soft tissue remodeling after orthodontic/orthognathic treatment and quantify maxillomandibular soft-to-hard tissue ratios (SHR).

Methods

A search of sagittal craniofacial SHR after orthodontic or orthognathic treatment was conducted through PubMed, Springer Link and ProQuest. NIH risk-of-bias evaluation, heterogeneity and sensitivity analyses were conducted. After selecting the most discussed and strongly correlated SHRs, we examined how sagittal and vertical hard tissue movements affect sagittal soft tissue movements. We then extracted SHRs, magnitudes, and directions of hard and soft tissue movements. SHRs were categorized into distinct groups via cluster analysis, and intergroup variations were evaluated. When significant differences were observed (P < 0.05), a nonlinear curve was used to simulate the ratio; when no significant differences existed (P > 0.05), a linear regression equation was applied.

Results

From 2081 original studies, 28 articles were included. The maxillary and mandibular SHRs were determined. Ls∶U1 exhibited differences with U1 movement changes: Ls:U1 = 0.63:1 (0 mm < U1 ≤ 3 mm), 0.39:1 (3 mm < U1 ≤ 8 mm). There were no significant differences among other SHRs of movement magnitudes and directions: (i) soft A point:A point = 1.07:1, (ii) labrale inferius:lower incisor tip = 0.93:1, (iii) soft B point:B point = 0.80:1, (iv) soft pogonion:pogonion = 0.82:1, (v) soft menton:menton = 0.94:1. Sensitivity tests confirmed stable outcomes; confounding factors and measurement repeatability could not be adjusted due to secondary analysis limitations.

Conclusions

Most sagittal hard and soft tissue movements exhibited a significant correlation, with the exception of B’:Pg and Prn:A. The craniofacial SHR can be influenced by the magnitude of maxillary or mandibular hard tissue movement, but not by different movement directions. Clinicians may select matched SHRs by landmarks and hard tissue displacement.