How do Mandibular Osteotomies with and without Le Fort I osteotomy affect the Mentolabial Groove from the frontal view?

Year 2023, Volume: 10 Issue: 1, 84 - 88, 27.04.2023

Muazzez Suzen , Emrah Dilaver , Abdullah Özel , Sina Uçkan

https://doi.org/10.15311/selcukdentj.1192760

Abstract

Purpose: The aim of this study was to determine how the mentolabial groove at the frontal view is affected by orthognathic surgery.
Materials & Methods: Sixty-two patients were appointed into two groups (Group 1: Class II skeletal deformity, Group 2: Class III skeletal deformity). In each patient, pre and postoperative standardized sixth-month photos (lateral and frontal view) were obtained in natural head position to investigate mentolabial groove length (MGL), mentolabial groove depth (MGD), mentolabial groove angle (MGA) and mentolabial angle (MLA).
Results: Out of the 62 patients, 41 had Class III skeletal deformity (66.2%) and 21 Class II skeletal deformity (33.8%). In Group 1, the average ratio of MGL decreased significantly from 0.59±0.14 to 0.45±0.09 (p<0.001). Contrary to Group 1, the ratio of MGL increased significantly from 0.41±0.11 to 0.50±0.13 in Group 2 (p=0.001). There was a negative correlation between MGA and MGL (p=0.001, r=-0.439). MGD positively correlated with MGL (p<0.001, r=0.499).
Conclusion: After orthognathic surgery, the mentolabial groove decreases in class II patients and increases in class III patients. Orthognathic surgery significantly affects mentolabial anatomy and therefore should be planned carefully to obtain an aesthetic appearance in the mentolabial region.

Keywords

mentolabial groove, orthognathic surgery, frontal view

References

• 1. Naini FB, Cobourne MT, Garagiola U, McDonald F, Wertheim D: Mentolabial angle and aesthetics: a quantitative investigation of idealized and normative values. Maxillofac Plast Reconstr Surg.2017;39:1-7.
• 2. Rosen HM. Aesthetic refinements in genioplasty: the role of the labiomental fold. Plast Reconstr Surg. 1991;88(5):760-767.
• 3. Naini FB: Regional aesthetic analysis: mentolabial (labiomental) fold. Facial Aesthet concepts Clin diagnosis Wiley-Blackwell, Oxford, 2011.
• 4. Horev L, Zlotogorski A, Ramot Y: Deep Labiomental Fold With Pseudocomedones. JAMA dermatology 2013; 149: 879.
• 5. Ho C-T, Huang C-S, Lo L-J: Improvement of chin profile after mandibular set-back and reduction genioplasty for correction of prognathism and long chin. Aesthetic Plast Surg 2012;36: 1198.
• 6. Tiwari R, Chakravarthi PS, Kattimani VS, Lingamaneni KP: A Perioral Soft Tissue evaluation after Orthognathic Surgery Using Three-Dimensional Computed Tomography Scan. Open Dent J 2018;1;12:366.
• 7. Park JY, Kim MJ, Hwang SJ: Soft tissue profile changes after set-back genioplasty in orthognathic surgery patients. J Cranio-Maxillofacial Surg 2013; 41: 657
• 8. Mandrekar PN, Dhupar V, Akkara F: Prediction of soft-tissue changes following single and bi-jaw surgery: An evaluative study. Ann Maxillofac Surg 2021;11:32.
• 9. Rokaya D, Bhattarai BP, Suttagul K, Kafle D, Humagain M: Mentolabial sulcus: An esthetic-based classification. J Datta Meghe Inst Med Sci Univ 2018;13: 16.
• 10. Mobarak, K. A., Krogstad, O., Espeland, L., & Lyberg, T. (2001). Factors influencing the predictability of soft tissue profile changes following mandibular setback surgery. The Angle Orthodontist,2001;71: 216-227.
• 11. Fanibunda KB: Changes in the facial profile following correction for mandibular prognathism. Br J Oral Maxillofac Surg 1989; 27: 277.
• 12. Naoumova J, Söderfeldt B, Lindman R: Soft tissue profile changes after vertical ramus osteotomy. Eur J Orthod 2008; 30: 359.