A Clinical Comparative Study Evaluating Complications and Assessing Quality of Life Outcomes Following the Implementation of Single-Splint versus Double-Splint Techniques in Orthognathic Surgery for Patients exhibiting Class II Asymmetry: An Original Rese

Abstract

Aim: This study aims to evaluate complications and assess quality-of-life outcomes following the implementation of single-splint versus double-splint techniques in orthognathic surgery for patients with class II asymmetry.

Materials and Methods: This study involved 40 participants (20 males and 20 females) aged 18 to 35, each presenting various orthodontic issues, including chin deviation, dental crowding, and uneven smile aesthetics. For consistency, participants were required to have an Angle Class II molar relationship, a deviation of the mandibular midline, and specific dentition criteria, excluding third molars. They also needed a Class II facial profile and proper consent. The study enforced strict exclusion criteria to limit confounding variables, disqualifying individuals with a history of orthodontic treatments, trauma, certain syndromes, or severe TMJ disorders. Participants were systematically divided into two groups of 20, focusing on Class II skeletal asymmetry. Group I was treated with a three-dimensional guided single-splint technique while Group II received a double-splint approach. Both involved surgical procedures like Le Fort I osteotomy and bilateral sagittal split osteotomy. Outcomes were evaluated one year post-surgery to assess complications and quality of life following the procedures.

Statistical Analysis and Results: This study examined 40 patients diagnosed with Class II skeletal asymmetry, involving both genders aged 18 to 35. The sample included 22 males and 18 females, detailed in Table 1, which outlines demographic characteristics. Patients were split into two treatment groups of 20: Group I received a three-dimensional guided single-splint technique, while Group II underwent a double-splint technique with an intermediate splint, both involving Le Fort I osteotomy and bilateral sagittal split osteotomy (BSSO). One-year post-operative follow-ups evaluated surgical outcomes. Group I’s results, shown in Table 2, included scores for patient outcomes (4), symmetry (3), treatment accuracy (4), intraoperative adjustments (3), surgical demands (4), and quality of life (2). In contrast, Group II's scores, presented in Table 3, were patient outcomes (5), symmetry (4), accuracy (5), intraoperative adjustments (2), surgical demands (3), and quality of life (1). Overall findingswas summarized and utilised one-way ANOVA to compare the effectiveness of the two techniques, aiming to inform future treatment protocols for Class II skeletal asymmetry.

Conclusion: The study concluded that the double-splint technique is more reliable for complex three-dimensional planning, enabling a precise transfer of the surgical plan to the operating table. While both methods achieve similar patient outcomes, the double-splint technique is preferred for its reliability and reduced reliance on the surgeon's judgment.