## 4 Discussion  
Surgical treatment in orthognathic surgery of such asymmetrical discrepancies requires detailed measurements and evaluation of bone height, shape, and position to plan a good adequate surgical approach. Nowadays, bone asymmetries can also be caused by other factors, such as individual and genetically derived factors, and even asymmetrical teeth loss and bone formation within the remaining teeth in older people. Since asymmetry in older people also influences proper prosthesis position, and mastication force distribution when wearing dentures, every clinician should remember to plan adequately for future denture position in the edentulous maxillary and mandibular bones. A lack of lateral molars not only influences prosthesis adherence but also, according to the study, underlines the value of symmetry of the anterior and posterior parts of the maxillary bones. Because no adequate data on edentulous maxillary bone symmetry and asymmetry are known, the presented study evaluated and compared maxillary symmetry in edentulous patients on 3D stereolithography to find the potential correlation and usage of such 3D models in treatment planning. Palate and maxillary bone contour and shape change at various ages [5]. The degree of midline anterior inclines, curved midpalatal regions, and flat anterior/posterior midpalate sections varied greatly, which might also correspond to the authors' findings that the bone maxillary steep could be related to the relapse from teeth loss in edentulous patients and total maxillary bone remodeling. In our opinion, since anterior teeth are mostly present in older people, the molar/premolar area is already missing some valuable teeth, which form and shape the proper bone position and height. The authors concluded that adequate maxillary height does not only influence proper dental prosthesis adhesion but also corresponds with a potential source for good dental implant placement. In patients with permanent dentition, many studies comparing teeth shape/size and position in various bone relations compared to angle malocclusion and skeletal malocclu \begin{table}
\begin{tabular}{c c c c c c c c} \hline \hline  & **Sum.Rang** & **Sum.Rang** & **U** & **Z** & **_p_ Level & **N** & **N** & **2 * 1 str.** \\  & **Test** & **Control** & **U** & **Z** & **_p_ Level & **Test** & **Control** & **2 * 1 str.** \\ \hline
**FA1–(A–D)–(B–C)** & 229.00 & 96.00 & 41.00 & 1.886 & 0.059 & 15 & 10 & 0.062 \\
**FA1–(A–F)–(B–E)** & 248.00 & 77.00 & 22.00 & 2.940 & 0.003 ** & 15 & 10 & 0.002 ** \\ \hline \hline \end{tabular}
\end{table} 
Table 7: The difference in the severity of morphological asymmetry of the examined features between the test group and the control group—the Mann–Whitney U test. \begin{table}
\begin{tabular}{c c c c c} \hline \hline  & **N** & **T** & **Z** & **_p_** \\ \hline
**FA1–(A–D)–(B–C) \& FA1–(A–F)–(B–E)** & 15 & 26.0 & 1.931 & 0.053 \\
**test group** & & & & & \\ \hline
**FA1–(A–D)–(B–C) \& FA1–(A–F)–(B–E)** & 10 & 26.0 & 0.153 & 0.878 \\ \hline \hline \end{tabular}
\end{table} 
Table 8: The difference in the severity of morphological asymmetry of the studied features within groups—Wilcoxon’s pair order test. sion are known. Most of the relief on the position of the first upper maxillary molars 16/26 is a good symmetry position [14]. In the authors' study, because of 3D stereolithographic evaluation, the authors used six independent maxillary points (Figure 1) to establish any connection with possible asymmetry within edentulous maxillary processes. Since all 3D models had been toothless, no adequate data following possible malocclusion or jawbones disproportions had been found. On the other hand, horizontal asymmetry towards the midline should be used to establish any possible asymmetry, which might influence dental planning, especially if there is any residual dentition in the mandible and the patient has any dentoalveolar discrepancies. Other authors used permanent dentition as reference points. [PERSON] et al.