title: Analysis of incision effects on upper lip height and thickness after maxillary surgically assisted expansion: a randomized clinical trial.
abstract: OBJECTIVE
  To evaluate changes from maxillary circumvestibular incision performed with a #15 scalpel blade versus electrocautery on the height and thickness of the upper lip (UL) after surgically assisted maxillary expansion.
  
  
  METHODS
  Twenty-three patients who underwent surgically assisted maxillary expansion for transverse maxillary deficiency from April 2011 through April 2012 were included in the study. In group 1 (n = 11), the incision was performed with a Bard-Parker #15 scalpel blade. In group 2 (n = 12), the incision was performed with monopolar electrocautery (blend function, 1; power, 20 Watts; frequency, 480 kHz). Clinical measurements for UL height and radiographic measurements for UL height and thickness were performed preoperatively and postoperatively (mean, 6 months). The collected data were subjected to statistical analysis to test the hypotheses of the study.
  
  
  RESULTS
  After excluding 2 patients, 21 patients were included in the sample. For UL height, clinical and radiographic measurements showed shortening of the UL, and the differences between pre- and postoperative values were statistically significant (P < .05) in the 2 groups. However, there was no statistically significant difference between groups 1 and 2 for UL height (P > .05) by clinical or radiographic measurements. For UL thickness, the 2 groups showed slight UL thickening in the lower portion, with no statistical difference between pre- and postoperative values (P > .05). Moreover, these results were not statistically different between the 2 groups (P = .754). In the uppermost portion of the UL, there was significant thinning in group 2 (P = .001), but not in group 1 (P = .076), and no statistical difference between groups (P = .535).
  
  
  CONCLUSIONS
  Maxillary circumvestibular incision causes significant shortening of the UL and thinning of the uppermost portion when using a #15 scalpel blade or electrocautery. However, there is no difference in UL dimensional changes when using either technique for maxillary circumvestibular incision.
authors.affiliation: Resident, Department of Oral and Maxillofacial Surgery, Paraná Federal University, Curitiba, Brazil. Electronic address: antonini_fernando@hotmail.com.
authors.forename: Fernando
authors.initials: F
authors.lastname: Antonini
authors.forename: Delson João
authors.initials: DJ
authors.lastname: da Costa
authors.forename: Rafaela Scariot
authors.initials: RS
authors.lastname: de Moares
authors.forename: Nelson Luis Barbosa
authors.initials: NL
authors.lastname: Rebellato
authors.forename: Leandro Eduardo
authors.initials: LE
authors.lastname: Klüppel
authors.forename: Eduardo Varela
authors.initials: EV
authors.lastname: Parente
mesh_terms: D000328:Adult; D002508:Cephalometry / Q000379:methods; D004564:Electrocoagulation / Q000295:instrumentation; D005260:Female; D005500:Follow-Up Studies; D006801:Humans; D007180:Incisor / Q000033:anatomy & histology; D008046:Lip / Q000473:pathology / Q000601:surgery*; D008297:Male; D008437:Maxilla / Q000002:abnormalities / Q000601:surgery*; D063166:Maxillary Osteotomy / Q000379:methods*; D019340:Osteotomy, Le Fort / Q000379:methods; D010155:Palatal Expansion Technique; D011446:Prospective Studies; D013536:Suture Techniques