Three dimensional accuracy and stability of segmented Le Fort I osteotomy – a systematic review

BACKGROUND: Segmental Le Fort I osteotomy has traditionally been regarded as less predictable and stable, a perception largely based on two-dimensional evaluation methods. Despite existing systematic reviews on clinical outcomes, a dedicated synthesis of three-dimensional assessments of surgical accuracy and postoperative stability is lacking. PURPOSE: This systematic review evaluated three-dimensional (3D) assessment methods and outcome of planning accuracy and postoperative stability in segmented Le Fort I osteotomies. The aim was to determine the reliability of 3D methods in capturing surgical accuracy and long-term skeletal stability. STUDY SELECTION: Medline, Embase, Web of Science, and Cochrane were searched up to October 25, 2024. Eligible studies included randomized controlled trials, prospective or retrospective studies, or case series with > 5 patients reporting 3D evaluation of planning accuracy or stability. Exclusion criteria were systematic reviews, meta-analyses, single case reports, ex-vivo or animal studies, and studies involving syndromic patients, facial trauma, or prior maxillofacial surgery. Risk of bias and quality of evidence were assessed using the GRADE approach. Twenty-two studies met inclusion criteria: three randomized and nineteen non-randomized controlled trials. Fourteen assessed planning accuracy, five evaluated stability, and three examined both. RESULTS: Twenty-two studies met the inclusion criteria and were included in the qualitative synthesis. Considerable methodological heterogeneity limited direct comparison and precluded meta-analysis. Overall, segmented Le Fort I osteotomy demonstrated clinically acceptable accuracy; however, certain movements-particularly transverse widening, advancement, and pitch-were more prone to underachievement, with discrepancies ranging from 0.77 to 1.41 mm, 0.55 to 2.69 mm, and 0.12° to 5.22°, respectively. During follow-up, transverse relapse was more pronounced at the dental level (0.39-1.41 mm) compared to skeletal changes (0.05-0.86 mm). CONCLUSION: Segmented Le Fort I osteotomy shows reliable outcomes in 3D evaluations, but some maxillary movements remain difficult to achieve and maintain such as advancement and pitch. Standardized, voxel-based 3D assessment protocols are recommended to improve comparability and strengthen the evidence base. (PROSPERO registration: CRD42018111854).

Authors

Institutions

Publication Details

Journal
Head & Face Medicine
Published
2026-06-26
DOI
https://doi.org/10.1186/s13005-026-00625-x
Primary Topic
Orthodontics and Dentofacial Orthopedics
Type
article
Field-Weighted Citation Impact
0.00

Funders

Controls
|||
ALL TIME
JAN
FEB
MAR
APR
MAY
JUN
JUL
AUG
SEP
OCT
article

Three dimensional accuracy and stability of segmented Le Fort I osteotomy – a systematic review

Oliver da Costa Senior, Constantinus Politis, Reinhilde Jacobs, Marie Coppens et al.
Head & Face Medicine
Orthodontics and Dentofacial Orthopedics
article

Three dimensional accuracy and stability of segmented Le Fort I osteotomy – a systematic review

Oliver da Costa Senior, Constantinus Politis, Reinhilde Jacobs, Marie Coppens, Eman Shaheen
article en

Abstract

BACKGROUND: Segmental Le Fort I osteotomy has traditionally been regarded as less predictable and stable, a perception largely based on two-dimensional evaluation methods. Despite existing systematic reviews on clinical outcomes, a dedicated synthesis of three-dimensional assessments of surgical accuracy and postoperative stability is lacking. PURPOSE: This systematic review evaluated three-dimensional (3D) assessment methods and outcome of planning accuracy and postoperative stability in segmented Le Fort I osteotomies. The aim was to determine the reliability of 3D methods in capturing surgical accuracy and long-term skeletal stability. STUDY SELECTION: Medline, Embase, Web of Science, and Cochrane were searched up to October 25, 2024. Eligible studies included randomized controlled trials, prospective or retrospective studies, or case series with > 5 patients reporting 3D evaluation of planning accuracy or stability. Exclusion criteria were systematic reviews, meta-analyses, single case reports, ex-vivo or animal studies, and studies involving syndromic patients, facial trauma, or prior maxillofacial surgery. Risk of bias and quality of evidence were assessed using the GRADE approach. Twenty-two studies met inclusion criteria: three randomized and nineteen non-randomized controlled trials. Fourteen assessed planning accuracy, five evaluated stability, and three examined both. RESULTS: Twenty-two studies met the inclusion criteria and were included in the qualitative synthesis. Considerable methodological heterogeneity limited direct comparison and precluded meta-analysis. Overall, segmented Le Fort I osteotomy demonstrated clinically acceptable accuracy; however, certain movements-particularly transverse widening, advancement, and pitch-were more prone to underachievement, with discrepancies ranging from 0.77 to 1.41 mm, 0.55 to 2.69 mm, and 0.12° to 5.22°, respectively. During follow-up, transverse relapse was more pronounced at the dental level (0.39-1.41 mm) compared to skeletal changes (0.05-0.86 mm). CONCLUSION: Segmented Le Fort I osteotomy shows reliable outcomes in 3D evaluations, but some maxillary movements remain difficult to achieve and maintain such as advancement and pitch. Standardized, voxel-based 3D assessment protocols are recommended to improve comparability and strengthen the evidence base. (PROSPERO registration: CRD42018111854).

Head & Face Medicine
University of Antwerp (BE), Karolinska Institutet (SE), Antwerp University Hospital (BE), Province of Antwerp (BE), Ziekenhuisnetwerk Antwerpen Stuivenberg (BE), KU Leuven (BE)
Karolinska Institutet
Reduced inequalities
Openalex Percentile: Top 7%
Orthodontics and Dentofacial Orthopedics
AI Navigator

Ask Laika to Summarize, Analyze, and Connect papers live on the map.

Summarize Papers & Methodologies

Extract key findings, datasets, and comparative methods across publications.

Benchmark Rankings & Visual Analytics

Rank top research institutions, authors, funders, topics, and journals by Field-Weighted Citation Impact (FWCI) and paper volume with instant charts.

Connect Distant Disciplines

Bridge topological clusters on the map to find hidden collaborative intersections.