ClinicalTrials.gg
CompletedNCT06281197Updated Feb 28, 2024

Does Subspinal Le Fort I Osteotomy Affect the Nasal Airway Volume

An interventional study of Conventional and Subspinal in Maxillofacial Abnormalities, sponsored by TC Erciyes University. Completed at 1 site in Turkey. Open to participants aged 18 Years to 40 Years, including healthy volunteers. Per ClinicalTrials.gov, last updated 2024-02-28.

Sponsored by TC Erciyes University · Not applicable, Interventional, and Treatment

From the registry’s dates

  • Registered 3 years 1 month after the study started (first participant enrolled Jan 2021, registered Feb 2024).
Phase
Not applicable
Study type
Interventional
Enrollment
47
Allocation
Randomized
Ages
18 Years to 40 Years
Sex
All
01

Study summary

After the description of Le Fort fractures, maxillary osteotomies are used to correct dentofacial deformities. The profile changes on nasolabial region resulting from a Le Fort I osteotomy, also that affects nasal airway. The Subspinal Le Fort I osteotomy (SLFIO) describe to prevent undesirable soft tissue changes. In the literature, too many articles have reported the effectiveness of SLFIO in preventing nasal deformation. However, there is no study to evaluate the nasal volume or septum deviation.

Read the detailed description

The purpose of this study was objectively and subjectively to compare the effect of Subspinal Le Fort I Osteotomy and Conventional Le Fort I Osteotomy on nasal airway volume and septum deviation without additional modification such as Ans Reduction, Alar Cinch Suture, V-Y closure.

Surgical procedure; Patients were underwent general anesthesia for bimaxillary orthognathic surgery.

The mucoperiosteal flap was raised to expose the bilateral infraorbital foramina, aperture pyriformis, zygomaticomaxillary, and pterygomaxillary buttress. No dissection was performed between the nasal mucosa and the ANS of the patients in Subspinal Le Fort osteotomy group.A triangular osteotomy line was created between the maxilla and the ANS with a piezosurgery. In Conventional osteotomy group, Le Fort I osteotomy was made using a piezosurgical saw after nasal mucosa elevation. In both groups, osteotomes and pterygoid plaques, nasal septum, and lateral nasal walls were separated.

Follow up:

septum deviation and nasal. airway volume value was measured and recorded in the CBCT images taken before the surgery and at the 6th month after the surgery of each patient.

02

Conditions studied

  • Maxillofacial Abnormalities

Keywords

  • Subspinal Le Fort Osteotomy
  • Nasal airway
03

In context

Maxillofacial Abnormalities

21 studies on the registry are indexed under Maxillofacial Abnormalities; 2 are open to participants now.

This study's enrollment of 47 is close to the median of 49 across 10 interventional studies indexed under Maxillofacial Abnormalities.

Browse Maxillofacial Abnormalities studies →

Lead sponsor

TC Erciyes University is the lead sponsor of 349 studies on the registry; 74 are open to participants now.

Counted across the registry records on this site, refreshed daily.

04

Who can participate

Ages eligible
18 Years to 40 Years
Sexes eligible
All
Accepts healthy volunteers
Yes

Go through the criteria one by one — yes, no or not sure — and take the list to your doctor or the study team. Kept in this browser only.

Inclusion criteria

  • aged 18-40, , without systemic disease, without any drug allergy, and without a history of NSAID use in the week before the operation.

Exclusion criteria

Exclusion Criteria:

  • or higher, hepatic or renal dysfunction, neuropathic disease, long-term use of NSAIDs or opioid-derived drugs, a history of allergic reaction to drugs, pain, swelling, inflammation in the head and neck region before the operation, pregnant and breastfeeding with a history of cleft lip and palate and rhinoplasty surgery
Terms in these criteria, in plain language(1)

Underlined terms in the criteria open these too. Explained by clinicaltrials.gg, not part of the registry record. The study team decides who can take part.

ASA physical status

The anaesthetists’ scale of health before surgery: I is healthy, II has a mild illness that is under control, III a severe one, IV a severe illness that is a constant threat to life. V and VI are used for the critically ill and for organ donors.

05

Study design

Phase
Not applicable
Primary purpose
Treatment
Allocation
Randomized
Intervention model
Parallel assignment
Masking
Double (Participant, Outcomes assessor)
Enrollment
47 participants (actual)

Study arms

  • Experimental
    Conventional Group

    In conventional group, Le Fort I osteotomy was made using a piezosurgical saw after nasal mucosa elevation as usual Le Fort I technique.

    Procedure: Conventional

  • Active comparator
    Subspinal Group

    In Subspinal group, No dissection was performed between the nasal mucosa and the ANS of the patients. Osteotomy was performed in the subspinal Le Fort I group that is described by Mommaerts . A triangular osteotomy line was created between the maxilla and the ANS with a piezosurgery.

    Procedure: Subspinal

Interventions

  • ProcedureConventional

    Le Fort I osteotomy performed with conventional Le Fort

    Also known as: Group II

  • ProcedureSubspinal

    Osteotomy was performed in the subspinal Le Fort I group that is described by Mommaerts

    Also known as: Group I

06

What researchers measure

Primary outcomes

  1. Evaluation of Septum Deviation

    This angle value was measured and recorded in the CBCT images taken before the surgery and at the 6th month after the surgery of each patient. If the angle in the preoperative view is smaller than the angle in the postoperative view, there is a decrease in septum deviation; If it is large, it was accepted that there was an increase in septum deviation.

    Time frame: up to six months

  2. Evaluation of Nasal Airway

    CBCT scans were scanned for anatomical landmarks to adjust the volume analyzed by automatic segmentation in NemoFAB. Dens endpoint of the axis and nasion were found to be the most consistent at the anterior cranial and posterior caudal borders in the mid-sagittal plane The lateral borders were determined as the most lateral part of the nasal cavity. These markers were used to define the cubic area of interest (ROI), which includes the cranial cavity up to the maxillary base. In the sagittal tomography section, the nasal airway volume was measured in cc on the section taken from the midline.

    Time frame: up to six months

Secondary outcomes

  1. nasal obstruction scale evaluation

    The patients filled out the form about NOSE scales in the preoperative evaluation period and the postoperative 6th month, and the sum of the score values given for each question in the questionnaire was calculated and the total scores were recorded

    Time frame: up to six months

07

Study locations

1 site
  • Selin Çelebi
    Kayseri, Meligazi 38320, Turkey
08

References and documents

Publications

  • Guenthner TA, Sather AH, Kern EB. The effect of Le Fort I maxillary impaction on nasal airway resistance. Am J Orthod. 1984 Apr;85(4):308-15. doi: 10.1016/0002-9416(84)90188-x. PubMed 6585148 ↗
  • Galbiati G, Maspero C, Giannini L, Guenza GC, Zanoni F, Farronato G. Orthodontic--surgical treatment and respiratory function: rhinomanometric assessment. Minerva Stomatol. 2017 Jun;66(3):91-97. doi: 10.23736/S0026-4970.17.04045-6. Epub 2017 Apr 11. PubMed 28399616 ↗
  • Posnick JC, Agnihotri N. Consequences and management of nasal airway obstruction in the dentofacial deformity patient. Curr Opin Otolaryngol Head Neck Surg. 2010 Aug;18(4):323-31. doi: 10.1097/MOO.0b013e32833b9d6f. PubMed 20625295 ↗
  • Helal HA, Ghanem MAM, Al-Badawy AM, Abdel Haleem MM, Mousa MH. Histological and Anthropometric Changes in the Aging Nose. Aesthet Surg J. 2019 Aug 22;39(9):943-952. doi: 10.1093/asj/sjy245. PubMed 30247560 ↗
  • Schwarz GM, Thrash WJ, Byrd DL, Jacobs JD. Tomographic assessment of nasal septal changes following surgical-orthodontic rapid maxillary expansion. Am J Orthod. 1985 Jan;87(1):39-45. doi: 10.1016/0002-9416(85)90172-1. PubMed 3881034 ↗
  • Kaur S, Rai S, Kaur M. Comparison of reliability of lateral cephalogram and computed tomography for assessment of airway space. Niger J Clin Pract. 2014 Sep-Oct;17(5):629-36. doi: 10.4103/1119-3077.141431. PubMed 25244276 ↗
  • Goncales ES, Duarte MA, Palmieri C Jr, Zakhary GM, Ghali GE. Retrospective analysis of the effects of orthognathic surgery on the pharyngeal airway space. J Oral Maxillofac Surg. 2014 Nov;72(11):2227-40. doi: 10.1016/j.joms.2014.04.006. Epub 2014 Apr 13. PubMed 24985958 ↗
  • Montgomery WM, Vig PS, Staab EV, Matteson SR. Computed tomography: a three-dimensional study of the nasal airway. Am J Orthod. 1979 Oct;76(4):363-75. doi: 10.1016/0002-9416(79)90223-9. PubMed 291340 ↗
  • Kunkel M, Hochban W. The influence of maxillary osteotomy on nasal airway patency and geometry. Mund Kiefer Gesichtschir. 1997 Jul;1(4):194-8. doi: 10.1007/BF03043550. PubMed 9384792 ↗
  • Erbe M, Lehotay M, Gode U, Wigand ME, Neukam FW. Nasal airway changes after Le Fort I--impaction and advancement: anatomical and functional findings. Int J Oral Maxillofac Surg. 2001 Apr;30(2):123-9. doi: 10.1054/ijom.2000.0001. PubMed 11405447 ↗
  • Turvey TA, Hall DJ, Warren DW. Alterations in nasal airway resistance following superior repositioning of the maxilla. Am J Orthod. 1984 Feb;85(2):109-14. doi: 10.1016/0002-9416(84)90002-2. PubMed 6594051 ↗

Individual participant data

Plan to share: No

09

Timeline

Tracking since Sep 25, 2026
ElapsedEstimatedEstimated, not yet reached

Ran from Jan 2021 to primary completion in Aug 2021, 7 months.

How these figures are worked out, and which studies are left out of them.

Registered
Feb 20, 2024
First posted
Feb 28, 2024
StartActual
Jan 15, 2021
Primary completionActual
Aug 15, 2021
CompletionActual
May 15, 2022
Last update
Feb 28, 2024
What these dates mean
Start.
When the first participant enrolled; while estimated, when the study expects to open to recruitment.
Primary completion.
When the last participant was examined or treated to collect data for the study's main question, its primary outcome. A study that stopped early gives the date its data collection stopped.
Completion.
When the last participant's last visit took place, for every outcome, secondary ones and side effects included: the end of the study. Often later than primary completion, sometimes the same day.
Actual and Est.
Actual means the registry says the date has happened. Est. (estimated) is a date the sponsor plans or expects. It can still move, and the sponsor is expected to change it to actual once it has passed.
No changes since tracking began. The registry record was last updated on Feb 28, 2024, before this site started recording changes on Sep 25, 2026. Its history is on ClinicalTrials.gov ↗
10

Registry details

Key details

Study ID
NCT06281197
Responsible party
Selin Celebi (PhD,DDS, TC Erciyes University) — Principal investigator
First posted
Feb 28, 2024
Start date
Jan 15, 2021
Primary completion
Aug 15, 2021
Completion
May 15, 2022
Last update
Feb 28, 2024

Oversight

Data monitoring committee
No
FDA-regulated drug
No
FDA-regulated device
No
View the source record on ClinicalTrials.gov ↗

Not currently enrolling

This study is completed, as verified in Feb 2024. You cannot join it, but the record below documents what was studied.

Follow this study

Get an email when the registry record changes — status, dates, results — or when someone posts here.

Sign in to follow

Discussion

Questions and observations about this study, from anyone following it. Not medical advice, and not a channel to the study team — their contact details are on the registry record.

Sign in to join the discussion. Reading takes no account; posting does. You choose a display name, and a pseudonym is the default.

Nothing here yet. If you are running this trial, taking part in it, or weighing whether to, this is the place to say so.

Start the discussion