Evidence Hub

Concurrent Computed Tomography-Based Evaluation of Nasal Morphology, Airway Volume, and Skeletal Changes Following Craniofacial Distraction Osteogenesis: A Pilot Retrospective Case Series

Vera Julia, F. Hariri, N. Ananda, L. Sulistyani, D. Ariawan, M. Latief, Annisa Ghaisani, D. Aryyaguna et al.

Journal of Stomatology Oral and Maxillofacial Surgery, 2026

Abstract

OBJECTIVE

This study aimed to conduct a computed tomography (CT)-based evaluation of anatomical changes in nasal morphology, nasal complex and upper airway volume, temporomandibular joint (TMJ) parameters, and bone density following craniofacial distraction osteogenesis (DO).

METHODS

A pilot retrospective case series was conducted on five patients (ages 1-27 years) who underwent maxillary, mandibular, or monobloc craniofacial DO. Preoperative and postoperative CT datasets were analysed using three-dimensional (3D) image processing software to quantify changes in nasal morphology (nasal index and nasolabial angle), airway volume (nasal complex and upper airway volumes), and skeletal (TMJ joint spaces, condylar volume, and bone density).

RESULTS

Postoperative upper airway volume increased significantly (mean +55%, (p = 0.043)), along with nasal complex volume (+147%) although insignificant (p = 0.090). Changes in nasal index and nasolabial angle were heterogeneous and non-significant. TMJ analysis revealed a significant reduction in the left posterior joint space (p = 0.013) and a significant increase in left condylar volume (p = 0.043). Bone density showed minimal changes postoperatively.

CONCLUSION

Craniofacial DO induces anatomical adaptations, most notably a significant increase in upper airway volume and adaptive remodelling of the TMJ, while nasal soft-tissue parameters and overall bone density remain relatively stable. These findings highlight the value of 3D CT…

How strong is the evidence?

Evidence Hub reads this as a case series, done in people. Its evidence level is 5 of 5 (Very low · case / narrative / animal / in vitro / in silico). Case reports, narrative reviews, and animal, cell or computer-model studies give the weakest evidence for human health.

How the five levels of evidence work. The level is assigned automatically from the abstract and can be wrong, so check the paper.

Read the paper

Related studies

Go deeper in Evidence Hub

Evidence Hub adds a study data sheet (design, sample size, evidence level, key numbers), an AI summary and a chat grounded in the paper's text.

Open this study Sign up free