Minimally invasive lefort 1 alternative (why is this not more well known?)

[Dogmatix]

Do I understand this procedure correctly as it's an alternative to advancing the maxilla, without moving the teeth? Like the equivalent of what a genio would be to a bsso?

[kavan]

Do I understand this procedure correctly as it's an alternative to advancing the maxilla, without moving the teeth? Like the equivalent of what a genio would be to a bsso?

From the author of the paper--the doc who does it:

"When paranasal deficiencies are not accompanied by occlusal alterations, mobilization of the maxilla via Le Fort I osteotomy may not be justified. In this preliminary, report for the first time is presented a U-shaped osteotomy (USO) that mobilizes anteriorly and/or superiorly the maxillary bone surrounding the pirifom aperture."

No idea if you understand it or not. Just know that I do which is that it's an isolated movement of the paranasasal area (part of maxilla bone surrounding the pear shaped nose hole in the skull).  Suited for those who need ONLY that area displaced; a bone cutting option to paranasal implants.

[Dogmatix]

From the author of the paper--the doc who does it:

"When paranasal deficiencies are not accompanied by occlusal alterations, mobilization of the maxilla via Le Fort I osteotomy may not be justified. In this preliminary, report for the first time is presented a U-shaped osteotomy (USO) that mobilizes anteriorly and/or superiorly the maxillary bone surrounding the pirifom aperture."

No idea if you understand it or not. Just know that I do which is that it's an isolated movement of the paranasasal area (part of maxilla bone surrounding the pear shaped nose hole in the skull).  Suited for those who need ONLY that area displaced; a bone cutting option to paranasal implants.

I did read this description.

"When paranasal deficiencies are not accompanied by occlusal alterations, mobilization of the maxilla via Le Fort I osteotomy may not be justified."

To me, the first part sounded like this is something that can be performed when the occlusion should not be altered, which I asked if I understood correctly.

The other part sounded like the procedure can mimic the effects of a le fort 1 osteotomy and be a less invasive alternative. Else I don't understand why one would bring up that this can be done when le fort 1 is not justified. Hence my question, what kind of movements that can come out of a le fort osteotomy that seems to be somewhat like what this procedure can do. The only thing I could think of was straight advancement.

[kavan]

I did read this description.

"When paranasal deficiencies are not accompanied by occlusal alterations, mobilization of the maxilla via Le Fort I osteotomy may not be justified."

To me, the first part sounded like this is something that can be performed when the occlusion should not be altered, which I asked if I understood correctly.

The other part sounded like the procedure can mimic the effects of a le fort 1 osteotomy and be a less invasive alternative. Else I don't understand why one would bring up that this can be done when le fort 1 is not justified. Hence my question, what kind of movements that can come out of a le fort osteotomy that seems to be somewhat like what this procedure can do. The only thing I could think of was straight advancement.

What I don't understand when addressing the things you don't understand is the 'neuro-linquistic connections' you make with things where you tend to get confused a lot. What I do understand is what is meant when a doctor conveys information about what he's doing. But the best I can do here is describe how I understand what he's conveying. One more try:

He's saying that this is NOT a Lefort 1 and only advancement of the paranasal area.
He's saying he can ISOLATE one part of an area (paranasal) that gets advanced in a Lefort 1
He's saying that one does NOT have to get a Lefort 1 to get that isolated area advanced
he's saying this procedure will work for people who have a recessed paranasal area who don't need the whole Lefort 1 area advanced out.
He's saying isolated paranasal deficiencies in the absence of any occlusion problems or in the absence of any need to advance the WHOLE Lefort 1 area are NOT (may not be) a justification to move the WHOLE Lefort 1 area and because that is so, he has a surgery JUST FOR THAT.

He's saying it's an alternative to a Lefort 1 for people who DON'T NEED the whole L1 but only need the paranasal area advanced out; people who have paranasal deficiencies that are NOT co-existing with occlusal problems.

ETA: It doesn't move the teeth as would the L1.

[Dogmatix]

What I don't understand when addressing the things you don't understand is the 'neuro-linquistic connections' you make with things where you tend to get confused a lot. What I do understand is what is meant when a doctor conveys information about what he's doing. But the best I can do here is describe how I understand what he's conveying. One more try:

He's saying that this is NOT a Lefort 1 and only advancement of the paranasal area.
He's saying he can ISOLATE one part of an area (paranasal) that gets advanced in a Lefort 1
He's saying that one does NOT have to get a Lefort 1 to get that isolated area advanced
he's saying this procedure will work for people who have a recessed paranasal area who don't need the whole Lefort 1 area advanced out.
He's saying isolated paranasal deficiencies in the absence of any occlusion problems or in the absence of any need to advance the WHOLE Lefort 1 area are NOT (may not be) a justification to move the WHOLE Lefort 1 area and because that is so, he has a surgery JUST FOR THAT.

He's saying it's an alternative to a Lefort 1 for people who DON'T NEED the whole L1 but only need the paranasal area advanced out; people who have paranasal deficiencies that are NOT co-existing with occlusal problems.

ETA: It doesn't move the teeth as would the L1.

Thank you very much Kavan, you're right. I make overly convoluted questions and conclussions when trying to understand these things. On the good hand, your response cleared it out to me. What I should've asked was if the part that is being mobilized is an isolated sub part of what is being mobilized in a le fort 1, which I think you replied very cleary to.

[kavan]

Thank you very much Kavan, you're right. I make overly convoluted questions and conclussions when trying to understand these things. On the good hand, your response cleared it out to me. What I should've asked was if the part that is being mobilized is an isolated sub part of what is being mobilized in a le fort 1, which I think you replied very cleary to.

Yes. Correct.