Journal of Maxillofacial and Oral Surgery

, Volume 19, Issue 1, pp 119–124 | Cite as

Experience with Anterior Maxillary Osteotomy Techniques: A Prospective Study of 20 Cases

  • Ashish GuptaEmail author
  • Sneha D. Sharma
  • Vimanyu Kataria
  • Pankaj Bansal
  • Rahul Sharma
Original Article



This prospective study aimed at studying the complications associated with different techniques of anterior segmental maxillary osteotomy.

Material and Method

The study was conducted on 20 cases diagnosed with anteriorly prognathic maxilla with class 1 molar relation. The patients were followed up for a period of at least 1 year. The clinical and demographic data along with the intraoperative and postoperative complications associated with different treatment techniques were recorded.


In five cases, Wassmund technique was followed with average time span of 32 min. Wunderer and Cupar technique took average time span of 23 min. Two patients presented with four non-vital teeth in a follow-up period of 1 year and one patient treated with Cupar’s technique had complication of palatal tear. Only one patient reported with relapse in a follow-up period and none of the patients had any complication associated with hemorrhage, neurosensory alteration or requiring plate removal. The findings of our study recommend ASMO as treatment modality of choice in patients with bimaxillary and/or dentoalveolar protrusion with Cupar’s technique providing more ease of operation.


Anterior segmental osteotomy Complications Experience 


Compliance with Ethical Standards

Conflict of interest

The authors declare that they have no conflict of interest.

Ethical Standards

This study was conducted in compliance with the World Medical Association Declaration of Helsinki on medical research protocols and ethics.


  1. 1.
    Miyajima K, McNamara JA, Kimura T et al (1996) Craniofacial structure of Japanese and European–American adults with normal and well-balanced faces occlusions. Am J Orthod Dentofac Orthop 110:431–438CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Chung CS, Kau MC, Walker GF (1982) Racial variation of cephalometric measurements in Hawaii. J Craniofac Genet Dev Biol 2(2):99–106PubMedGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Cohn-Stock G (1921) Die cbirurgische Immedia-tregulierung der Kiefer, speziell die chirur-gische. Behandlung der Prognathie. Vjschr ZahnheilkBerlin 37:320Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Wassmund J (1935) Lehrbuch der praktischen chirurgie de Mundes und der Keifer, vol 1. Barth, Leipzig, pp 260–282Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Cupar I (1954) Surgical treatment of alterations in form and position of the maxilla. Osterr Z Stomatol 51:565PubMedGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Wunderer S (1963) Erfahrungen mit der operativen Behandlung hoch-gradiger Prognathien. Dtsch Zahn Mund Kieferheilk 39:451Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Bell WH, Condit CL (1970) Surgical-orthodontic correction of adult bimaxillary protrusion. J Oral Surg 28:578PubMedGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Gunaseelan R, Anantanarayanan P et al (2009) Intraoperative and perioperative complications in anterior maxillary osteotomy: a retrospective evaluation of 103 patients. J Oral Maxillofac Surg 67(6):1269–1273CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Bell WH (1969) Revascularization and bone healing after anterior maxillary osteotomy: a study using adult rhesus monkeys. J Oral Surg 27(4):249–255PubMedGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Quejada JG, Kawamura H et al (1986) Wound healing associated with segmental total maxillary osteotomy. J Oral Maxillofac Surg 44(5):366–377CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Mohnac AM (1966) Maxillary osteotomy in the management of occlusal deformities. J Oral Surg 24:305PubMedGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Jayaratne YSN, Zwahlen RA, Lo J, Cheung LK (2010) Facial soft tissue response to anterior segmental osteotomies: a systematic review. Int J Oral Maxillofac Surg 39(11):1050–1058CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Leibold DG et al (1971) A subjective evaluation of the reestablishment of the neuro-vascular supply of teeth involved in anterior maxillary osteotomy procedures. Oral Surg Oral Med Oral Pathol 32:531–543CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Sher MR et al (1984) A survey of complications in segmental orthognathic surgical procedures. Oral Surg Oral Med Oral Pathol 58(5):537–539CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Mesgarzadeh A, Motamedi MH, Akhavan H, Tousi TS, Mehrvarzfar P, Eshkevari PS (2010) Effects of Le Fort I osteotomy on maxillary anterior teeth: a 5-year follow up of 42 cases. Eplasty 10:e10PubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Morris DE et al (2007) Pitfalls in orthognathic surgery: avoidance and management of complications. Clin Plast Surg 34(3):e17–e29CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Kiely KD et al (2006) One-year postoperative stability of LeFort I osteotomies with biodegradable fixation: a retrospective analysis of skeletal relapse. Am J Orthod Dentofac Orthop 130(3):310–316CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Falter B et al (2011) Plate removal following orthognathic surgery. Oral Surg Oral Med Oral Pathol Oral Radiol Endodontol 112(6):737–743CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© The Association of Oral and Maxillofacial Surgeons of India 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  • Ashish Gupta
    • 1
    • 2
    Email author
  • Sneha D. Sharma
    • 1
  • Vimanyu Kataria
    • 1
  • Pankaj Bansal
    • 1
  • Rahul Sharma
    • 1
  1. 1.Department of OMFSSudha Rustagi College of Dental Sciences & ResearchFaridabadIndia
  2. 2.FaridabadIndia

Personalised recommendations