Bimaxillary Orthognathic Surgery in Skeletal Class III Malocclusion

Main Article Content

Stephanus Christianto
Yiu Yan Leung


Background: Skeletal Class III malocclusions can vary in severity, with different levels of treatment available to reflect this variance. In cases of moderate to severe skeletal discrepancy, orthodontic treatment in conjunction with orthognathic surgery is a common treatment option. This case report outlines an orthosurgical treatment approach for a patient with severe skeletal Class III malocclusion. Case Report: A 23-year-old female presented with skeletal Class III malocclusion. Pre-surgical orthodontic treatment was done after 1.5 years. The lateral profile view showed a concave profile, incompetent lip closure, deficiency in paranasal area, acute nasolabial angle, and obtuse labiomental fold. Intraorally, she had a negative 5.5 mm overjet and 2 mm overbite. The surgical procedures performed included high-level Le Fort I osteotomy, bilateral intraoral vertical ramus osteotomies (IVRO), and genioplasty. Conclusion: The treatment of skeletal Class III dentofacial deformity should be planned according to the malocclusion and facial profile to achieve a functional and esthetic outcome. A systematic treatment plan that takes into consideration the patient’s expectations and concerns must be created and implemented for a satisfactory outcome.



Download data is not yet available.

Plum Analytics

Article Details

Case Report


Mackay F, Jones JAH, Thompson R, Simpson W. Craniofacial Form in Class III Cases. Br J Orthod.1992;19(1):15-20.

Spalj S1, Mestrovic S, Lapter Varga M, Slaj M. Skeletal components of class III malocclusions and compensation mechanisms. (1365-2842 (Electronic)). J Oral Rehabil. 2008;35(8):629-37. DOI: 10.1111/j.1365-2842.2008.01869.x

Proffit WR, Phillips C, Turvey TA. Stability after surgical-orthodontic corrective of skeletal Class III malocclusion. 3. Combined maxillary and mandibular procedures. Int J Adult Orthodon Orthognath Surg. 1991;6(4):211-25.

Arnett GW, Bergman RT. Facial keys to orthodontic diagnosis and treatment planning. Part I. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop. 1993 Apr;103(4):299-312. DOI: 10.1016/0889-5406(93)70010-L

Arnett GW, Bergman RT. Facial keys to orthodontic diagnosis and treatment planning--Part II. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop. 1993;103(5):395-411. DOI: 10.1016/S0889-5406(05)81791-3

Allwright WC. A survey of handicapping dentofacial anomalies among Chinese in Hong kong. Int Dent J. 1964;14:505-19.

Su YY, Wang CL, Liu DX, Dong RP, Li H. Influence of chin prominence on anterior-posterior lip positions of facial profile. Shanghai Kou Qiang Yi Xue. 2008;17(6):598-602.

Soh J, Chew Mt, Wong HB. Professional assessment of facial profile attractiveness. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop. 2005 Aug;128(2):201-5. DOI: 10.1016/j.ajodo.2004.07.041

Stonier G, Mohammed A, Vanat M, Balasundaram I, Ali N, Millwataers M. Evaluation of experience and outcome in orthognathic surgery: a patient's perception. Int J Oral Maxillofac Surg. 2015;44(suppl 1):e190-1.

Altug-Atac AT, Bolatoglu H, Memikoglu UT. Facial soft tissue profile following bimaxillary orthognathic surgery. Angle Orthod. 2008 Jan;78(1):50-7. DOI: 10.2319/122206-525.1.

Al-Moraissi EA, Ellis E3rd. Is There a Difference in Stability or Neurosensory Function Between Bilateral Sagittal Split Ramus Osteotomy and Intraoral Vertical Ramus Osteotomy for Mandibular Setback?. J Oral Maxillofac Surg. 2015;73(7):1360-71. DOI: 10.1016/j.joms.2015.01.010.

Panula K, Finne K Fau - Oikarinen K, Oikarinen K. Incidence of complications and problems related to orthognathic surgery: a review of 655 patients. J Oral Maxillofac Surg. 2001 Oct;59(10):1128-36. DOI:

Colella G, Cannavale R, Vicidomini A, Lanza A. Neurosensory disturbance of the inferior alveolar nerve after bilateral sagittal split osteotomy: a systematic review. J Oral Maxillofac Surg. 2007 Sep;65(9):1707-15. DOI: 10.1016/j.joms.2007.05.009

Nesari S, Kahnberg KE, Rasmusson L. Neurosensory function of the inferior alveolar nerve after bilateral sagittal ramus osteotomy: a retrospective study of 68 patients. Int J Oral Maxillofac Surg. 2005;34(5):495-8. DOI: 10.1016/j.ijom.2004.10.021

Al-Bishri A1, Barghash Z, Rosenquist J, Sunzel B. Neurosensory disturbance after sagittal split and intraoral vertical ramus osteotomy: as reported in questionnaires and patients' records. Int J Oral Maxillofac Surg. 2005;34(3):247-51. DOI: 10.1016/j.ijom.2004.06.009

Jaaskelainen SK, Teerijoki-Oksa T, Forssell H. Neurophysiologic and quantitative sensory testing in the diagnosis of trigeminal neuropathy and neuropathic pain. Pain. 2005 Oct;117(3):349-57. DOI: 10.1016/j.pain.2005.06.028

Hashiba Y, Ueki K, Marukawa K, Shimada M, Yoshida K, Shimizu C, Alam S, et al. A comparison of lower lip hypoesthesia measured by trigeminal somatosensory-evoked potential between different types of mandibular osteotomies and fixation. Oral Surg Oral Med Oral Pathol Oral Radiol Endod. 2007 Aug;104(2):177-85. DOI: 10.1016/j.tripleo.2006.11.038

Takazakura D, Ueki K, Nakagawa K, Marukawa K, Shimada M, Shimada M, et al. A comparison of postoperative hypoesthesia between two types of sagittal split ramus osteotomy and intraoral vertical ramus osteotomy, using the trigeminal somatosensory-evoked potential method. Int J Oral Maxillofac Surg. 2007;36(1):11-4. DOI: 10.1016/j.ijom.2006.09.016

Ghali GE, Sikes JW. Intraoral vertical ramus osteotomy as the preferred treatment for mandibular prognathism. J Oral Maxillofac Surg. 2000;58(3):313-5