Objective:To test the validity of lateral pre-treatment and pre-surgical VTO, by comparing them with the post-treatment lateral cephalometry. Methods: A total of 26 patients affected by Class III who underwent orthognathic surgery were evaluated. For all patients, pre-treatment (T0), pre-surgical (T1) and post-treatment (T2) cephalometric tracings, pre-treatment and pre-surgical VTO were performed. Nine measurements of hard tissues were considered. A comparison was made between pre-treatment and pre-surgical cephalometric measurements, post-treatment cephalometric tracing and pre-treatment VTO, post-treatment cephalometric tracing, and pre-surgical VTO. Descriptive and inferential statistics along with Bland-Altman plot were used to analyze the agreement between the outcome and the program. Results: From the comparison between pre-treatment and pre-surgical values, a statistically significant difference was found for the SNB angle (P = .0292), the inclination of the upper (P = .0309) and lower incisors (P < .000) and the over-jet (P < .000). The comparison between the post-treatment cephalometry (T2) and pre-treatment VTO (T0) highlighted good agreement between over-bite and over-jet values. The comparison between the post-treatment cephalometry (T2) and pre-treatment VTO (T0) highlighted good agreement with over-jet and IMPA angle. All parameters had high dispersion and the Bland-Altman plot appeared to be scattered. Conclusion: Given the bias and the imprecisions between the orthodontic-surgical program and the outcome, the indications given by 2-dimensional VTO should be used with caution.
RickettsRM.Planning treatment on the basis of the facial pattern and an estimate of its growth. Angle Orthod. 1957;27(1):14-37.
2.
DevaMSeshamVM.Visual treatment objective: a review. Indian J Dent Adv. 2018;10(3):136-146. doi:10.5866/2018.10.10136
3.
BengtssonMWallGMiranda-BurgosPRasmussonL.Treatment outcome in orthognathic surgery—a prospective comparison of accuracy in computer assisted two and three-dimensional prediction techniques. J Craniomaxillofac Surg. 2018;46(11):1867-1874. doi:10.1016/J.JCMS.2017.01.035
4.
ProffitWRFieldsHLarsonBSarverDM.Biologic Basis of Orthodontic Therapy. St. Louis: Mosby; 2018.
5.
PetermanRJJiangSJoheRMukherjeePM.Accuracy of Dolphin visual treatment objective (VTO) prediction software on class III patients treated with maxillary advancement and mandibular setback. Prog Orthod. 2016;17(1):19. doi:10.1186/s40510-016-0132-2
6.
ZhangNLiuSHuZHuJZhuSLiY.Accuracy of virtual surgical planning in two-jaw orthognathic surgery: comparison of planned and actual results. Oral Surg Oral Med Oral Pathol Oral Radiol. 2016;122(2):143-151. doi:10.1016/J.OOOO.2016.03.004
7.
EckhardtCECunninghamSJ.How predictable is orthognathic surgery?Eur J Orthod. 2004;26(3):303-309. doi:10.1093/ejo/26.3.303
8.
EliadesT.Research Methods in Orthodontics. Heidelberg: Springer. doi:10.1007/978-3-642-31377-6
9.
Toepel-SieversCFischer-BrandiesH.Validity of the computer-assisted cephalometric growth prognosis VTO (Visual treatment objective) according to Ricketts. J Orofac Orthop. 1999;60(3):185-194. doi:10.1007/BF01365265
10.
HoCTLinHHLiouEJWLoLJ. Three-dimensional surgical simulation improves the planning for correction of facial prognathism and asymmetry: a qualitative and quantitative study. Sci Rep. 2017;7(1):40423. doi:10.1038/srep40423
11.
UdomlarpthamNLinCHWangYCKoEWC. Does two-dimensional versus three-dimensional surgical simulation produce better surgical outcomes among patients with class III facial asymmetry?Int J Oral Maxillofac Surg. 2018;47(8):1022-1031. doi:10.1016/j.ijom.2018.02.014
12.
GaberRMShaheenEFalterB, et al. A systematic review to uncover a universal protocol for accuracy assessment of 3-dimensional virtually planned orthognathic surgery. J Oral Maxillof Surg. 2017;75(11):2430-2440. doi:10.1016/j.joms.2017.05.025
13.
AghazadaHVernucciRARamieriV, et al. Assessment of maxillary canting on cone beam computed tomography and digital models: a retrospective study and proposal of a method. J Stomatol Oral Maxillofac Surg. 2022;123(2):128-135. doi:10.1016/j.jormas.2021.03.005
14.
WuTYLinHHLoLJHoCT.Postoperative outcomes of two- and three-dimensional planning in orthognathic surgery: a comparative study. J Plast Reconstr Aesthet Surg. 2017;70(8):1101-1111. doi:10.1016/J.BJPS.2017.04.012
15.
KimHY.Statistical notes for clinical researchers: evaluation of measurement error 2: Dahlberg’s error, Bland-Altman method, and Kappa coefficient. Restor Dent Endod. 2013;38(3):182-185. doi:10.5395/rde.2013.38.3.182
16.
BlandJMAltmanDG.Statistical methods for assessing agreement between two methods of clinical measurement. Lancet. 1986;1(8476):307-310.
17.
KimSJChoiJYBaekSH.Evaluation of canting correction of the maxillary transverse occlusal plane and change of the lip canting in Class III two-jaw orthognathic surgery. Angle Orthodontist. 2012;82(6):1092-1097. doi:10.2319/011512-36.1
18.
ZhangXMeiLYanX, et al. Accuracy of computer-aided prediction in soft tissue changes after orthodontic treatment. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop. 2019;156(6):823-831. doi:10.1016/j.ajodo.2018.11.021
19.
LoLJWengJLHoCTLinHH.Three-dimensional region-based study on the relationship between soft and hard tissue changes after orthognathic surgery in patients with prognathism. PLoS One. 2018;13(8): e0200589. doi:10.1371/JOURNAL.PONE.0200589
20.
BaroneMde StefaniABacilieroUBrunoGGraccoA.The accuracy of jaws repositioning in bimaxillary orthognathic surgery with traditional surgical planning compared to digital surgical planning in skeletal Class III patients: a retrospective observational study. J Clin Med. 2020;9(6):1840. doi:10.3390/jcm9061840
