ArticleHead & face medicine2026
Comparison of nasolabial changes following Le Fort Ⅰ maxillary advancement versus Medpor implantation in skeletal class Ⅲ patients.
Article in Head & face medicine, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors.
Funding
Abstract
objectiveNasolabial depression is a main aesthetic concern in patients with skeletal Class Ⅲ malocclusion, for which Le Fort Ⅰ maxillary advancement or paranasal Medpor implantation is the major treatment choice. However, the aesthetic changes following these two treatments are unclear. This study aimed to compare the nasolabial modifications following Le Fort Ⅰ advancement and Medpor implantation to provide a reference for in surgical planning.
methodsTwenty skeletal Class Ⅲ patients undergoing Le Fort Ⅰ advancement or paranasal Medpor implantation were retrospectively enrolled (10 in the advancement group and 10 in the implantation group). Spiral CT data were acquired one week preoperatively (T1) and at least 6 months postoperatively (T2) for study. For detailed comparison, the nasolabial region was divided into paranasal and subnasal regions. A total of 26 landmarks were marked, from which 10 linear segments,4 angles, corresponding regional volume and curvature were measured.
resultsThe average moving distance in advancement group was 5.29 ± 0.53 mm, and the average thickness of the Medpor implant was 6.51 ± 0.72 mm. After surgery in both groups, most of the parameters in the paranasal and subnasal regions increased significantly (P ≤ 0.05), except for nasal length (N'-SN). In the advancement group, the postoperative nasal length (N'-SN) demonstrated a significant reduction compared to preoperative values, whereas in the implantation group, no significant difference was observed in nasal length (N'-SN) after surgery. In the paranasal region, alar width and alar base width showed significantly greater changes in the implantation group than in the advancement group. In the subnasal region, four linear segments, one angle and the corresponding volume and curvature showed significantly greater changes in the advancement group than in the implantation group.
conclusionBoth Le Fort Ⅰ advancement and Medpor implantation can significantly improve paranasal depression. However, compared with Le Fort Ⅰ advancement, Medpor implantation provides limited improvement in subnasal depression but affects more in alar width.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.