## 4 Discussion
As a result, it could be implied that the greater the surgical movement, the lower the correlation expected from these areas. Aside from the interpretation of the absolute values, the vector values represented the error directions. Pronasele, stomian inferius, soft tissue point B, and pogonion were all negative for both groups whereas other maxillary landmarks had positive values. As a result, this program's soft tissue predictions for the maxilla, except for pronasele, are more posterior than they should be. The mandibular predictions, on the other hand, weremore anterior than in reality. This could have occurred because orthodontic treatment after surgery can alter the Pg position due to the vertical force of elastic or tooth extrusion, which induces downward and backward mandibular rotational movements. The soft tissueogonion will also move backward in relation to the underlying hard tissue [25]. Other orthodontic tooth movements, such as upper or lower anterior retraction, can also affect lip position. [PERSON] et al. [26] revealed that upper lip retraction due to maxillary incisor retraction occurred at a mean ratio of 1:0.75, and [PERSON] et al. [27] found that every millimeter of mandibular incisor retraction resulted in 0.4 mm of upper lip retraction and 0.6 mm of lower lip retraction. [PERSON] et al. [28] discovered that each 10-degree change in maxillary and mandibular incisor inclinations result in average horizontal changes of 0.4 mm and 0.3 mm for point A and point B, respectively. However, tooth extraction to relieve crowding or to correct abnormal inclination is usually required prior to surgery; therefore, the extensive changes in tooth movements occurred and were completed before taking the preoperative CBCTs. Only minor tooth movements occurred during the postoperative period, and they had a minor influence on the soft tissue changes after surgery, with no significant impacts on the results interpretation. There are some differences between the results of Simplant O&O and those of other well-known programs. Maximim 3D software (Medicim--Medical Image Computing, Mechelen, Belgium) was studied by [PERSON] et al. [13] and [PERSON] et al. [29]. Both authors concluded that Maximim's 3D soft tissue prediction was clinically acceptable in general. [PERSON] et al. found that the lower lip region had the lowest accuracy and the sub-nasal region had the highest accuracy when used for patients who had undergone BSSO for mandibular advancements. [PERSON] et al., on the other hand, studied 13 patients who underwent Le Fort I surgeries and concluded that the upper lip area was the most unpredictable. For Dolphin software studies, [PERSON] et al. [15] and [PERSON] et al. [7] studied patients who underwent only Le Fort I maxillary movements, and they identified subnasale and subalar areas as having the poorest midline agreement. Meanwhile, [PERSON] et al. [30] studied patients who underwent bimaxillary surgery and discovered that the most underpredicted areas for Dolphin 3D were nasolabial angle, soft tissue point A, and subalar area, which are roughly the same areas identified in the two studies above. As a result, we can conclude that 3D soft tissue prediction using Dolphin has acceptable accuracy, though with limitations in the subalar region. Our findings were more in line with Maximim than with Dolphin. It is possible that this was due to the fact that both Simplant O&O and Maximim software use the mass tensor model algorithm (MTM) [31; 32] whereas Dolphin 3D imaging employs the region growing algorithm for segmentation and the sparse landmark-based photographic morphing algorithm for virtual model prediction, which was originally developed for two-dimensional predictions and then adapted to three-dimensional predictions [7; 33]. All of the aforementioned programs rely on semi-automatic segmentation tools that necessitate user intervention to locate seed points or initiate contours.