English (United Kingdom)

https://curated-unify.zendy.io/wp-json/zendy-region/v1/featured_content/oa?rat=en

https://curated-unify.zendy.io/wp-json/zendy-region/v1/highlighted_journal/

Global: Zendy Plus annual

Presents the access of premium content as premium feature

Premium Content

Presents the keyphrase highlighting as premium feature

Keyphrase Highlighting

Presents the summarisation as premium feature

Summarisation

Insights

Presents the pdf analysis as premium feature

PDF Analysis

Presents the zaia usage as premium feature

ZAIA

Global: Zendy Tools annual

Global: Zendy Free Plan

Global: Zendy Tools monthly

Global: Zendy Plus monthly

The aim of this study was to compare the soft tissue predicative abilities of two established programs depending on the surgical technique and amount of displacement. On the basis of 50 computed tomography images, 11 orthognathic operations with differences in displacement distances and technique (maxillary advancement, MxA; maxillary impaction, MxI; mandibular setback, MnS; mandibular advancement, MnA bimaxillary displacement, MxA/MnS) as well as corresponding soft tissue predictions were simulated using the programs Dolphin (D) and ProPlan (PP). For all the soft tissue predictions by the two programs, eight linear and two angular measurements were performed and compared. The simulation of maxillary impaction showed a similar soft tissue behaviour between the two programs. However, differences or divergent behaviours were observed for other procedures. In the middle third of the face these significant differences concerned in particular the nasolabial angle (Ns-Sn-Ls)(5 mm-MA, D: 119.9 ± 8.6° vs. PP: 129.5 ± 8.4°; 7 mm-MnS: D: 128.5 ± 8.2° vs. PP: 129.6 ± 8.1°; 10 mm-MnA D: 126.0 ± 8.0° vs. PP: 124.9 ± 8.4°; 5 mm-MxA/4 mm-MnS, D: 120.2 ± 8.7° vs. PP: 129.9 ± 8.3°; all p &lt; 0.001) and in the lower third the mentolabial angle (Pog´-B´-Li) (5 mm-MA, D: 133.2 ± 11.4° vs. PP: 126.8 ± 11.6°; 7 mm-MnS: D: 133.1 ± 11.3° vs. PP: 124.6 ± 11.9°; 10 mm-MnA D: 133.3 ± 11.5° vs. PP: 146.3 ± 11.1°; bignathic 5 mm-MxA/4 mm-MnS, D: 133.1 ± 11.4° vs. PP: 122.7 ± 11.9°; all p &lt; 0.001) and the distance of the inferior lip to the aesthetic Line (E-Line-Li) (5 mm-MA, D: 3.7 ± 2.3 mm vs. PP: 2.8 ± 2.5 mm; 7 mm-MnS: D: 5.1 ± 3.0 mm vs. PP: 3.3 ± 2.3 mm; 10 mm-MnA D: 2.5 ± 1.6 mm vs. PP: 3.9 ± 2.8 mm; bignathic 5 mm-MxA/4 mm-MnS, D: 4.8 ± 3.0 mm vs. PP: 2.9 ± 2.0 mm; all p &lt; 0.001). The soft tissue predictions by the tested programs differed in simulation outcome, which led to the different, even divergent, results. However, the significant differences are often below a clinically relevant level. Consequently, soft tissue prediction must be viewed critically, and its actual benefit must be clarified.

Comparison of soft tissue simulations between two planning software programs for orthognathic surgery