Related Experiment Video
Updated: May 6, 2026
A Postoperative Evaluation Guideline for Computer-Assisted Reconstruction of the Mandible
Published on: January 28, 2020
Comparison of soft-tissue profiles in Le Fort I osteotomy patients with Dolphin and Maxilim softwares
Nasser Nadjmi1, Azita Tehranchi, Niloufar Azami
1Professor and coordinating program director, and oral and maxillofacial surgeon, University of Antwerp; director, team for cleft and craniofacial anomalies, Antwerp, Belgium.
Introduction:
To correct dentofacial deformities, a combination of orthodontic treatment and orthognathic surgery is needed. Prediction software packages are beneficial in treatment planning and achieving improved outcomes, but before using any software, its reliability and reproducibility must be assessed. The aim of this study was to evaluate the accuracy of 2-dimensional Dolphin (version 10; Dolphin Imaging & Management Solutions, Chatsworth, Calif) and 3-dimensional Maxilim (Medicim, Sint-Niklaas, Belgium) softwares in predicting the soft-tissue profiles of patients who had Le Fort I osteotomies.
Methods:
The presurgical and postsurgical cone-beam computed tomography synthesized lateral cephalograms of 13 patients were collected. Using the Dolphin and Maxilim softwares, the postsurgical profiles were predicted. The positions of the soft-tissue landmarks in profile views were compared with landmarks in the postsurgical photographs. The data were analyzed with the coefficient of reliability and paired-sample t tests.
Results:
The alpha values of the interclass correlations for each landmark in the x and y planes were between 0.96 and 0.99, except for stomion superior in Maxilim (0.83). The 95% confidence interval and the absolute mean of the error showed that errors in the Dolphin software were greater than those in the Maxilim software, but the differences were not significant (P >0.05), except for soft-tissue A-point. The greatest errors were seen in the chin region. The prediction errors of the nasolabial and mentolabial angles were greater; the prediction error in the Dolphin software was 9°, which has clinical significance.
Conclusions:
The Dolphin and Maxilim softwares are both appropriate for clinical use. Their inaccuracies in the prediction of the chin region should be considered in complicated surgical planning.
