FACE OR OCCLUSION
Authors:
Sophocleous V.1, Zyli M.3, Fakitsas D.2, Gkinosati A.3, Nicolaou Z.4 , Laspos C.3
Affiliation:
1 Universitat Internacional de Catalunya, Spain
2 European University Cyprus, School of Medicine
3 European University Cyprus, School of Dentistry
4 Cyprus Cranio- Maxillofacial Center
Doi: 10.54936/haoms242p42
ABSTRACT:
Objective: The aim is to present three patients that were treated orthodontically in a nice Class I occlusion. However, the face and the skeletal discrepancy were overlooked by the orthodontist and they eventually returned to our clinic after the completion of the orthodontic treatment, complaining about the aesthetic outcome.
Methods and Materials: All three patients received a secondary treatment including maxillofacial surgery. The new treatment focused not only on the occlusion but also the face. Comparison of pre-treatment and post-treatment records including lateral cephalometric radiographs were used.
Results: Comparison of the records shows significant improvement of facial aesthetics in all three planes. A stable Class I occlusion was also obtained. Symptoms of obstructive sleep apnea were also resolved in one of the patients who was presented with a severe mandibular retrognathism.
Conclusion: This presentation illustrates clearly the failure of the orthodontist to understand the real chief complaint of the patients and the inability to present to the patient the option of the surgical correction, either due to lack of experience and knowledge or personal beliefs regarding surgical orthodontic approach. Emphasis is given on the cooperation between the orthodontist and the oral and maxillofacial surgeon which is of utmost importance in such surgical cases.
KEY WORDS:
Authors:
Sophocleous V.1, Zyli M.3, Fakitsas D.2, Gkinosati A.3, Nicolaou Z.4 , Laspos C.3
Affiliation:
1 Universitat Internacional de Catalunya, Spain
2 European University Cyprus, School of Medicine
3 European University Cyprus, School of Dentistry
4 Cyprus Cranio- Maxillofacial Center
Doi: 10.54936/haoms242p42
ABSTRACT:
Objective: The aim is to present three patients that were treated orthodontically in a nice Class I occlusion. However, the face and the skeletal discrepancy were overlooked by the orthodontist and they eventually returned to our clinic after the completion of the orthodontic treatment, complaining about the aesthetic outcome.
Methods and Materials: All three patients received a secondary treatment including maxillofacial surgery. The new treatment focused not only on the occlusion but also the face. Comparison of pre-treatment and post-treatment records including lateral cephalometric radiographs were used.
Results: Comparison of the records shows significant improvement of facial aesthetics in all three planes. A stable Class I occlusion was also obtained. Symptoms of obstructive sleep apnea were also resolved in one of the patients who was presented with a severe mandibular retrognathism.
Conclusion: This presentation illustrates clearly the failure of the orthodontist to understand the real chief complaint of the patients and the inability to present to the patient the option of the surgical correction, either due to lack of experience and knowledge or personal beliefs regarding surgical orthodontic approach. Emphasis is given on the cooperation between the orthodontist and the oral and maxillofacial surgeon which is of utmost importance in such surgical cases.
KEY WORDS: