Related Experiment Video
Updated: Aug 26, 2025
Author Spotlight: 3D Movement Assessment of Maxillary Posterior Teeth in Clear Aligner Treatment
Published on: February 23, 2024
Does Clockwise Rotation of Maxillomandibular Complex Using Surgery-First Approach to Correct Mandibular Prognathism
Suraj Prasad Sinha1, Nat Lilakitrungrueang2, Thuy-Duong Tran Duy3
1Clinical fellow, Craniofacial Research Center, Chang Gung Memorial Hospital, Taoyuan; Department of Craniofacial Orthodontics, Chang Gung Memorial Hospital, Taipei, Taiwan.
Purpose:
Orthognathic surgery (OGS) using the surgery-first approach (SFA) can decrease treatment time and increase patient satisfaction. Clockwise rotation (CWR) of the maxillomandibular complex to correct mandibular prognathism leads to optimized functional, aesthetic, and stable outcomes. This study examined the combined effect of SFA and CWR of the maxillomandibular complex to correct mandibular prognathism by comparing the surgical movement before (T0) and immediately after OGS (T1) and the stability between T1 and 12 months after OGS (T2).
Methods:
This prospective cohort study enrolled patients with skeletal Class III malocclusion who underwent SFA involving Le Fort I osteotomy and bilateral sagittal split osteotomy, with or without genioplasty. Based on the occlusal plane (OP) change at T0-T1, the patients were divided into CWR (OP > 4°) and control (C) groups (OP ≤ 4°). The predictor variable was OP change at T0-T1. The primary outcome variable was the stability of pogonion (Pog) at T1-T2. The covariates included demographic factors, cephalometric measurements (anterior facial height, posterior facial height, OP, mandibular plane angle, incisor mandibular plane angle, overjet, and overbite), and 3-dimensional landmark displacement (anterior nasal spine, A-point, upper central incisor, upper first molar, lower central incisor, lower first molar, Pog, gonion, and condylion). An independent t-test was used to compare between these 2 groups when appropriate. The level of significance was set at P < .05.
Results:
The sample included 28 patients (17 females) in the C group and 36 (24 females) in the CWR group; the mean ages were 23.89 ± 3.35 and 24.08 ± 4.02 years, respectively. For the surgical movement at T0-T1, the CWR group showed an association with vertical movement of the maxilla at posterior nasal spine (P = .005), anterior nasal spine (P < .001), and A-point (P < .001) and horizontal backward movement of the mandible at B-point (P < .001), Pog (P < .001), and gonion (P = .042). At T1-T2, all landmarks remained stable without clinically significant difference between the 2 groups.
Conclusion:
Surgical movement in the CWR group could vertically displace the maxilla and setback mandible more than that in the C group. Postoperative skeletal stability remained the same between the 2 groups at 1 year after OGS.
