## 4 Discussion  
Class-III dentofacial deformities are intermaximillary skeletal misalignments treated by orthognathic surgery [11]. In 1980, [PERSON] conducted a study concerning blood supply to the down fractured maxilla and established the efficacy and safety of the surgical procedure. Other authors later defined and modified the surgical treatment in such cases. They showed how determining a surgical treatment plan (mandibular set-back, maxillary advancement, or a combination of both) is based on VTO, patient's complaint, facial cephalometric radiographs analysis, and the model analysis [15]. Since then, advances in surgical technics and instrumentation encouraged a global adoption of maxillary orthognathic surgery. The introduction of rigid internal fixation, oscillating and reciprocating micro-saws, piezo surgery, and distraction osteogenesis are all now an integral part of the maxillofacial armamentarium, contributing to the predictability, safety, and stability of the Le-fort osteotomy. CBCT-based computer imaging and prediction software also aids in achieving accurate treatment plans and more esthetic and accurate results. The importance of orthodontic treatment prior to the surgical procedure and the post-operative orthodontic treatment is crucial for achieving final optimal and stable occlusion [21]. The preoperative orthodontic treatment consists of producing decompensation of the teeth for three major reasons: better position upon the alveolar bone, better periodontal condition, and sufficient negative overjet and proper inclination of the anterior teeth in order to create a mutual relationship between dentofacial occlusal and skeletal discrepancy. Proper decompensation facilitates the correction of inter-arch relationships at the time of surgery by optimizing the surgical movements. Thus, it contributes significantly to the overall aesthetic and functional outcome and long-term stability [22; 23]. \begin{table}
\begin{tabular}{c c c c} \hline  & **Measurement (\(\pm\)STD)** & **Range** & **Normal Values** \\ \hline Maximillary length, mm & 75.24 \(\pm\) 13.38 & 59.1–99.5 & 95.5 \(\pm\) 4.23 \\ Mandibular length, mm & 108.60 \(\pm\) 21.27 & 91–144.4 & 127.25 \(\pm\) 7.05 \\ Maxilla–mandibular difference (Diff), mm & 33.36 \(\pm\) 9.18 & 11.8–54 & 31.75 \(\pm\) 2.55 \\ Overjet (Of), mm & \(-\)3.56 \(\pm\) 2.89 & 0–(\(-\)11) & 2.5 \(\pm\) 1 \\ U1 to FH, Degrees & 122.53\({}^{\circ}\)\(\pm\) 7.70\({}^{\circ}\) & 107\({}^{\circ}\)–141\({}^{\circ}\) & 113.6\({}^{\circ}\)\(\pm\) 6.3\({}^{\circ}\) \\ U1 to PP, Degrees & 119.15\({}^{\circ}\)\(\pm\) 6.57\({}^{\circ}\) & 104\({}^{\circ}\)–137\({}^{\circ}\) & 112\({}^{\circ}\)\(\pm\) 6.45\({}^{\circ}\) \\ L1 to MP, Degrees & 90.45\({}^{\circ}\)\(\pm\) 6.38\({}^{\circ}\) & 78\({}^{\circ}\)–110\({}^{\circ}\) & 90\({}^{\circ}\)\(\pm\) 5\({}^{\circ}\) \\ \hline \end{tabular}
\end{table} 
Table 2: Descriptive data of the collected variables. Measured data (with standard deviation), the range of the measured variables, and the normal values (according to McNamara cephalometric analysis). \begin{table}
\begin{tabular}{c c c} \hline  & **Maxilla–Mandibular Difference** \\ \hline  & **r** & \(p\)**-Value** \\ \hline U1 to FH & 0.254 & 0.037 \\ U1 to PP & 0.447 & \textless{}0.001 \\ L1 to MP & \(-\)0.059 & 0.342 \\ Overjet & \(-\)0.426 & \textless{}0.001 \\ \hline \end{tabular}
\end{table} 
Table 3: Correlation between maxilla–mandibular difference and measured variables. No significant correlation was found for L1 to MP; a significant correlation was found with U1 to FH, U1 to PP, and overjet (r = 0.254,r = 0.447, r = \(-\)0.426 respectively). Part of the planning is performed by presurgical calculation of upper and lower incisors' inclination relative to the facial planes according to obtained cephalometric values. Without adequate incisor decompensation surgical movement, the final skeletal position may be limited by the extent of the incisor overjet [24].