Single-Stage Mandibular Curved Ostectomy on Affected Side Combined with Bilateral Outer Cortex Grinding for Correction of Facial Asymmetry: Indications and Outcomes
- 21 Downloads
Facial asymmetry combined with a prominent mandibular angle is common in the population. Its treatment involves two or three stages of surgeries. Generally, orthognathic surgery is a top priority. However, some patients with no severe occlusion disorders focus on the appearance and could not accept complex therapeutic procedures. This study evaluated the surgical effect of en bloc mandibular angle–body–chin curved ostectomy (MABCCO) combined with traditional mandibular angle curved ostectomy (MACO) and bilateral outer cortex grinding (OCG) to correct facial asymmetry and a prominent mandibular angle.
From September 2013 to November 2017, a total of 40 patients with facial asymmetry and prominent mandibular angle were chosen for this study. The authors performed single-stage surgery of en bloc MABCCO combined with traditional MACO and bilateral outer cortex grinding to correct facial asymmetry. Patient satisfaction was investigated by questionnaires at 6 months postoperation. The effectiveness was then evaluated through cephalometric radiographs, three-dimensional computed tomography, and preoperative and postoperative standard facial photographs.
The postoperative results of all 40 cases showed that facial asymmetry was effectively corrected without serious complications, and the square face was also significantly improved with a harmonious mandibular contour. There was a statistical difference between the patient’s preoperative and postoperative satisfaction scores (p < 0.05). The objective esthetic outcomes evaluated by both surgeons and patients were quite satisfactory.
Single-stage surgery of en bloc MABCCO combined with traditional MACO and bilateral OCG was an adaptable option for correction of facial asymmetry and prominent mandibular angle with slight occlusion disorders, which can both largely shorten treatment time and shape a harmonious face.
Level of Evidence IV
This journal requires that authors assign a level of evidence to each article. For a full description of these Evidence-Based Medicine ratings, please refer to the Table of Contents or the online Instructions to Authors www.springer.com/00266.
KeywordsFacial asymmetry Mandibular angle–body–chin curved ostectomy Mandibular angle ostectomy Contouring Indication
This study was funded by the National Natural Science Foundation of China (Grant No. 81400565).
Compliance with Ethical Standards
Conflict of interest
The authors declare that they have no conflict of interest.
All procedures performed in studies involving human participants were in accordance with the ethical standards of Plastic Surgery Hospital, Chinese Academy of Medical Sciences, Peking Union College and with the 1964 Helsinki Declaration and its later amendments or comparable ethical standards.
Informed consent was obtained from all individual participants included in the study.
- 1.Samman N, Tong AC, Cheung DL, Tideman H (1992) Analysis of 300 dentofacial deformities in Hong Kong. Int J Adult Orthod Orthognath Surg 7(3):181–185Google Scholar
- 2.Severt TR, Proffit WR (1997) The prevalence of facial asymmetry in the dentofacial deformities population at the University of North Carolina. Int J Adult Orthod Orthognath Surg 12(3):171–176Google Scholar
- 4.Haraguchi S, Takada K, Yasuda Y (2002) Facial asymmetry in subjects with skeletal Class III deformity. Angle Orthod 72(1):28–35Google Scholar
- 6.Peck S, Peck L, Kataja M (1991) Skeletal asymmetry in esthetically pleasing faces. Angle Orthod 61(1):43–48Google Scholar
- 7.Shah SM, Joshi MR (1978) An assessment of asymmetry in the normal craniofacial complex. Angle Orthod 48(2):141–148Google Scholar
- 10.Zhang C, Teng L, Chan FC, Xu JJ, Lu JJ, Xie F, Zhao JY, Xu MB, Jin XL (2014) Single stage surgery for contouring the prominent mandibular angle with a broad chin deformity: en-bloc mandibular angle–body–chin curved ostectomy (MABCCO) and outer cortex grinding (OCG). J Craniomaxillofac Surg 42(7):1225–1233CrossRefGoogle Scholar