Dental and Medical Problems

Dent Med Probl
Index Copernicus (ICV 2020) – 128.41
MEiN – 70 pts
CiteScore (2021) – 2.0
JCI – 0.22
Average rejection rate (2021) – 81.35%
ISSN 1644-387X (print)
ISSN 2300-9020 (online)
Periodicity – quarterly

Download PDF

Dental and Medical Problems

2016, vol. 53, nr 1, January-March, p. 13–21

doi: 10.17219/dmp/60756

Publication type: original article

Language: English

Download citation:

  • BIBTEX (JabRef, Mendeley)
  • RIS (Papers, Reference Manager, RefWorks, Zotero)

Creative Commons BY-NC-ND 3.0 Open Access

Changes in Measurements of Segner-Hasund Analysis in Patients with Mandibular Prognathism after Orthognathic Surgery

Zmiany parametrów analizy Segnera-Hasunda u pacjentów z progenią po zabiegach ortognatycznych

Katarzyna Bogusiak1,A,B,C,D,E,F, Marek Kociński2,C,E,F, Adam Łutkowski2,B,D,F, Andrzej Materka2,A,E,F, Piotr Arkuszewski1,A,E,F

1 Department of Craniomaxillofacial and Oncological Surgery, Medical University of Lodz, Łódź, Poland

2 The Institute of Electronics, Department of Medical Electronics, Technical University of Lodz, Łódź, Poland


Background. In mandibular prognathism abnormal proportions of the facial part of the cranium are reflected in impaired facial aesthetics. Surgical methods that are currently used in Poland in order to correct mandibular prognathism include bilateral sagittal split ramus osteotomy (BSSO) and extraoral vertical ramus osteotomy (EVRO). There are also different kinds of cephalometric parameters measured on cephalograms used to plan and evaluate the outcomes of surgical and orthodontic treatment concerning mandibular prognathism.
Objectives. The aim of this research was to assess the early treatment outcome observed after vertical and sagittal osteotomy of the mandibular ramus with the use of cephalometric Hasund-Segner analysis.
Material and Methods. Overall, 98 lateral cephalograms, made before surgery and at least 6 months after the surgery, were collected in order to perform the analysis of treatment results. Cephalometric analysis proposed by Hasund and Segner was used to assess bone and soft tissue changes after orthognathic surgeries.
Results. Six months after the orthognathic treatment we observed a relevant improvement in parameters describing the sagittal relationship between the maxilla and the mandible, and between the mandible and the skull base. Positive influence was also noticed in the case of vertical relationship parameters of the Hasund-Segner analysis.
Conclusion. Both methods used in surgical treatment of mandibular prognathism, namely the external vertical ramus osteotomy and the bilateral sagittal split osteotomy, had a positive influence on the anterior-posterior relation of the mandible towards the skull base and the maxilla assessed in Hasund-Segner cephalometric analysis. There are small differences related with the impact that the surgery has on hard and soft tissue profile, depending on the surgical technique. BSSO had greater impact on Holdaway’s angle than EVRO.

Key words

orthognathic surgery, mandibular prognathism, Segner-Hasund analysis, bilateral sagittal split ramus osteotomy (BSSO), extraoral vertical ramus osteotomy (EVRO)

Słowa kluczowe

chirurgia ortognatyczna, prognatyzm żuchwy, analiza Segnera-Hasunda, obustronna strzałkowa osteotomia gałęzi żuchwy (BSSO), pionowa osteotomia gałęzi żuchwy z dostępu zewnątrzustnego (EVRO)

References (15)

  1. Downarowicz P., Kawala B., Matthews-Brzozowska A.: Mandibular prognathism – diagnosis, etiology and treatment. Literature review. Magazyn Stomatol. 2007, 17, 4, 46–48 [in Polish].
  2. Chang H.P., Kinoshita Z., Kawamoto T.: Craniofacial pattern of Class III deciduous dentition. Angle Orthod. 1992, 62, 139–144.
  3. Stellzig-Eisenhauer A., Lux C.J., Schuster G.: Treatment decision in adult patients with malocclusion: orthodontic therapy or orthognathic surgery? Am. J. Orthod. Dentofac. Orthoped. 2002, 122, 27–38.
  4. Bogusiak K., Arkuszewski P.: Single jaw surgeries performed in treating mandibular prognathism – literature review. Dent. Med. Probl. 2013, 50, 387–403.
  5. Tharanon W.: Comparison between the rigidity of biocortical screws and miniplate for fixation of a mandibular setback after a simulated bilateral sagittal split osteotomy. J. Oral. Maxillofac. Surg. 1998, 56, 1055–1065.
  6. Stróżyk P., Nowak R.: Finite elements method analysis of fixation for bilateral sagittal split osteotomy. Dent. Med. Probl. 2011, 48, 157–164.
  7. Turvey T.A.: Intraoperative complications of sagittal osteotomy of the mandibular ramus. J. Oral. Maxillofac. Surg. 1985, 43, 504–509.
  8. Panula K., Finne K., Okarinen K.: Incidence of complications and problems related to orthognathic surgery, a review of 655 patients. J. Oral. Maxillofac. Surg. 2001, 59, 1128–1136.
  9. Jones D.L., Wolford L.M., Hartog J.M.: Comparison of methods to assess neurosensory alterations following orthognathic surgery. Int. Adult. Orthod. Orthognath. Surg. 1990, 5, 35–42.
  10. Singh G.D., McNamara J.A. Jr, Lozanoff S.: Morphometry of the midfacial complex in subjects with class III malocclusions: Procrustes, Euclidean, and cephalometric analyses. Clin. Anat. 1998, 11, 162–70.
  11. Segner D., Hasund A.: Individual kefalometrie. Med Tour Press International Wydawnictwo Medyczne, Warszawa 1996.
  12. Lisowska I.: Orthodontic evaluation of the results of surgical treatment of mandibular prognathism based on the cephalometric analysis using the Segner–Hasund method. Ann. Academiae Medicae Stetin. 2008, 54, 82–93.
  13. Bansal P., Singh V., Bansal S.: Relevance of anterior mandibular body ostectomy in mandibular prognathism. Natl. J. Maxillofac. Surg. 2013, 4, 57–65.
  14. Hong R.K.: Liqual orthodontics combined with orthognathic surgery in skeletal Class III patient. J. Clin. Oncol. 2000, 34, 403–408.
  15. Dwyer P.W.: Orthodontic and orthognathic surgical correction of a severe Class III malocclusion. Am. J. Orthod. Dentofacial. Orthop. 1998, 113, 125–132.