Scholarlink

Objective <p>Nasolabial depression is a main aesthetic concern in patients with skeletal Class Ⅲ malocclusion, for which Le Fort Ⅰ maxillary advancement or paranasal Medpor implantation is the major treatment choice. However, the aesthetic changes following these two treatments are unclear. This study aimed to compare the nasolabial modifications following Le Fort Ⅰ advancement and Medpor implantation to provide a reference for in surgical planning.</p> Methods <p>Twenty skeletal Class Ⅲ patients undergoing Le Fort Ⅰ advancement or paranasal Medpor implantation were retrospectively enrolled (10 in the advancement group and 10 in the implantation group). Spiral CT data were acquired one week preoperatively (T1) and at least 6 months postoperatively (T2) for study. For detailed comparison, the nasolabial region was divided into paranasal and subnasal regions. A total of 26 landmarks were marked, from which 10 linear segments,4 angles, corresponding regional volume and curvature were measured.</p> Results <p>The average moving distance in advancement group was 5.29 ± 0.53&#xa0;mm, and the average thickness of the Medpor implant was 6.51 ± 0.72&#xa0;mm. After surgery in both groups, most of the parameters in the paranasal and subnasal regions increased significantly (<i>P</i> ≤ 0.05), except for nasal length (N’-SN). In the advancement group, the postoperative nasal length (N’-SN) demonstrated a significant reduction compared to preoperative values, whereas in the implantation group, no significant difference was observed in nasal length (N’-SN) after surgery.</p> <p>In the paranasal region, alar width and alar base width showed significantly greater changes in the implantation group than in the advancement group. In the subnasal region, four linear segments, one angle and the corresponding volume and curvature showed significantly greater changes in the advancement group than in the implantation group.</p> Conclusion <p>Both Le Fort Ⅰ advancement and Medpor implantation can significantly improve paranasal depression. However, compared with Le Fort Ⅰ advancement, Medpor implantation provides limited improvement in subnasal depression but affects more in alar width.</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

Comparison of nasolabial changes following Le Fort Ⅰ maxillary advancement versus Medpor implantation in skeletal class Ⅲ patients

  • 期刊论文

  • 出版模式：

    开放获取

  • 发表日期：

    2026年4月10日

查看全文
  • Xin LV,
  • Jingyi LI,
  • Jun CAO,
  • Yuxin WANG,
  • Xudong YANG,
  • Qian ZHANG

摘要

Objective

Nasolabial depression is a main aesthetic concern in patients with skeletal Class Ⅲ malocclusion, for which Le Fort Ⅰ maxillary advancement or paranasal Medpor implantation is the major treatment choice. However, the aesthetic changes following these two treatments are unclear. This study aimed to compare the nasolabial modifications following Le Fort Ⅰ advancement and Medpor implantation to provide a reference for in surgical planning.

Methods

Twenty skeletal Class Ⅲ patients undergoing Le Fort Ⅰ advancement or paranasal Medpor implantation were retrospectively enrolled (10 in the advancement group and 10 in the implantation group). Spiral CT data were acquired one week preoperatively (T1) and at least 6 months postoperatively (T2) for study. For detailed comparison, the nasolabial region was divided into paranasal and subnasal regions. A total of 26 landmarks were marked, from which 10 linear segments,4 angles, corresponding regional volume and curvature were measured.

Results

The average moving distance in advancement group was 5.29 ± 0.53 mm, and the average thickness of the Medpor implant was 6.51 ± 0.72 mm. After surgery in both groups, most of the parameters in the paranasal and subnasal regions increased significantly (P ≤ 0.05), except for nasal length (N’-SN). In the advancement group, the postoperative nasal length (N’-SN) demonstrated a significant reduction compared to preoperative values, whereas in the implantation group, no significant difference was observed in nasal length (N’-SN) after surgery.

In the paranasal region, alar width and alar base width showed significantly greater changes in the implantation group than in the advancement group. In the subnasal region, four linear segments, one angle and the corresponding volume and curvature showed significantly greater changes in the advancement group than in the implantation group.

Conclusion

Both Le Fort Ⅰ advancement and Medpor implantation can significantly improve paranasal depression. However, compared with Le Fort Ⅰ advancement, Medpor implantation provides limited improvement in subnasal depression but affects more in alar width.