D
Denkaren
Iron
- Joined
- Nov 23, 2025
- Posts
- 170
- Reputation
- 157
If you look at my recent activity, you’ll see that I’ve already gone through multiple cases showing a clear pattern with Ramieri. This isn’t about one-off mistakes, it’s consistent.
His approach is fundamentally flawed. The outcomes I’ve seen (including my own) repeatedly involve open bites, malocclusion, deteriorated facial proportions, and gonial angles that end up rotated inward rather than properly supported.
If you’re actually interested in understanding the full picture, I can break down case after case in detail. But you need to look past the surface-level marketing. There is a noticeable amount of promotion around him that doesn’t align with the actual results patients are getting.
What’s even more concerning is how negative outcomes seem to get buried. Cases are ignored, downplayed, or disappear entirely, while any criticism is quickly drowned out by waves of overly “positive” posts. It creates a completely misleading image of his work. He’s a narcissist, very good at manipulating people that are vulnerable.
I’m saying this as someone directly affected. When I first came across discussions about him, I found it strange how spotless his reputation seemed because it didn’t match reality at all. From what I’ve seen, and experienced, there is a clear gap between how he is presented and what he actually delivers.
The reason I decided to start this thread was after finding another case here from 2020. The person seemed genuinely devastated by the outcome from Ramieri, and it was obvious that he hadn’t fully understood the risks beforehand. What stood out was how similar aspects of their case were to mine regarding to the experiment Ramieri does with the proximal segment.
In my case, beyond the breathing issues, open bite, tmj he gave me, my mandible was effectively set back and my chin projection significantly compromised. There’s a pattern in how he handles the proximal segment and rotation that leads to these kinds of results and it’s something people should be aware of before making any decisions.
Right now I’m speaking purely from an aesthetic perspective. I’ve already made two threads about the functional issues this caused breathing problems and the open bite that resulted from his yaw rotation.
I’ve since come across multiple similar cases. A recurring pattern stands out: patients report functional issues, and more interestingly, some inward rotation of the gonial angles. The same thing happened to me after Ramieri, my gonial angles purposely rotated medially.
What I couldn’t initially explain was why my face looked so off. Post-op, it appeared noticeably bulkier and less defined. After comparing my pre- and post-op cbct, it became clear.
The proximal segment was torqued. Specifically, the external oblique ridge (upper ramus) was moved laterally, while the lower portion of the ramus, the gonial angle rotated inward (medially). This creates a mismatch. Increased width in the mid-ramus region, but reduced width and definition at the angles.
The result is a face that looks wider, but in an unnatural, less aesthetic way, more bulk without sharpness.
I’ve seen plenty of EXTREMLY underwhelming results from him, from botched genioplasty, underadvancements, bad planning and now this, experimenting with the proximal segment to make your face “wider”. He has to be one of the worst surgeon? I can’t fundamentally understand how one ca even consider this man?
The circled area shows the external oblique ridge. Since the masseter attaches in this region, lateral displacement here combined with segment rotation can contribute to the inward positioning of the gonial angles and the overall distorted appearance.
Ps. Notice how my head tilt on the after cbct are totally off, that’s what happens when you do a unsymmetrical yaw rotation to correct asymmetry, how ironic. I needed to adjust the after cbct because my head leans 2-3 mm to the left now.
His approach is fundamentally flawed. The outcomes I’ve seen (including my own) repeatedly involve open bites, malocclusion, deteriorated facial proportions, and gonial angles that end up rotated inward rather than properly supported.
If you’re actually interested in understanding the full picture, I can break down case after case in detail. But you need to look past the surface-level marketing. There is a noticeable amount of promotion around him that doesn’t align with the actual results patients are getting.
What’s even more concerning is how negative outcomes seem to get buried. Cases are ignored, downplayed, or disappear entirely, while any criticism is quickly drowned out by waves of overly “positive” posts. It creates a completely misleading image of his work. He’s a narcissist, very good at manipulating people that are vulnerable.
I’m saying this as someone directly affected. When I first came across discussions about him, I found it strange how spotless his reputation seemed because it didn’t match reality at all. From what I’ve seen, and experienced, there is a clear gap between how he is presented and what he actually delivers.
The reason I decided to start this thread was after finding another case here from 2020. The person seemed genuinely devastated by the outcome from Ramieri, and it was obvious that he hadn’t fully understood the risks beforehand. What stood out was how similar aspects of their case were to mine regarding to the experiment Ramieri does with the proximal segment.
In my case, beyond the breathing issues, open bite, tmj he gave me, my mandible was effectively set back and my chin projection significantly compromised. There’s a pattern in how he handles the proximal segment and rotation that leads to these kinds of results and it’s something people should be aware of before making any decisions.
Right now I’m speaking purely from an aesthetic perspective. I’ve already made two threads about the functional issues this caused breathing problems and the open bite that resulted from his yaw rotation.
I’ve since come across multiple similar cases. A recurring pattern stands out: patients report functional issues, and more interestingly, some inward rotation of the gonial angles. The same thing happened to me after Ramieri, my gonial angles purposely rotated medially.
What I couldn’t initially explain was why my face looked so off. Post-op, it appeared noticeably bulkier and less defined. After comparing my pre- and post-op cbct, it became clear.
The proximal segment was torqued. Specifically, the external oblique ridge (upper ramus) was moved laterally, while the lower portion of the ramus, the gonial angle rotated inward (medially). This creates a mismatch. Increased width in the mid-ramus region, but reduced width and definition at the angles.
The result is a face that looks wider, but in an unnatural, less aesthetic way, more bulk without sharpness.
I’ve seen plenty of EXTREMLY underwhelming results from him, from botched genioplasty, underadvancements, bad planning and now this, experimenting with the proximal segment to make your face “wider”. He has to be one of the worst surgeon? I can’t fundamentally understand how one ca even consider this man?
The circled area shows the external oblique ridge. Since the masseter attaches in this region, lateral displacement here combined with segment rotation can contribute to the inward positioning of the gonial angles and the overall distorted appearance.
Ps. Notice how my head tilt on the after cbct are totally off, that’s what happens when you do a unsymmetrical yaw rotation to correct asymmetry, how ironic. I needed to adjust the after cbct because my head leans 2-3 mm to the left now.
Attachments
Last edited:
