Comparison of postoperative stability of three rigid internal fixation techniques after sagittal split ramus osteotomy for mandibular advancement |
| |
| Affiliation: | 1. Department of Oral and Maxillofacial Surgery (Head: Prof. Dr. K. Ueki), Division of Medicine, Interdisciplinary Graduate School of Medicine and Engineering, University of Yamanashi, 1110 Shimokato, Chuo-shi, Yamanashi 409-3898, Japan;2. Department of Oral and Maxillofacial Surgery, Graduate School of Medicine, Kanazawa University, 13-1 Takaramachi, Kanazawa 920-8641, Japan;1. Department of Oral and Maxillofacial Surgery, School of Dentistry, Pusan National University, Yangsan, South Korea;2. Department of Orthodontics, School of Dentistry, Pusan National University, Yangsan, South Korea;3. Department of Tissue Engineering, Regea Institute for Regenerative Medicine, University of Tampere, Tampere, Finland;4. Department of Oral and Maxillofacial Surgery, University of Oulu, Oulu, Finland;5. Department of Oral and Maxillofacial Surgery, School of Dentistry, Pusan National University, Yangsan, South Korea;6. Dental Research Institute, and Institute of Translational Dental Sciences, Pusan National University, Yangsan, South Korea;1. Dental School at Araraquara, Oral and Maxillofacial Surgery Division, São Paulo State University – UNESP, Araraquara, São Paulo, Brazil;2. Dental School at Araraquara, Department of Prosthodontics, São Paulo State University – UNESP, Araraquara, São Paulo, Brazil;3. Section of Oral Radiology, Department of Dentistry, Faculty of Health, Aarhus University, Denmark;4. Maktoum Bin Hamdan Dental University College, Dubai, United Arab Emirates;1. Resident, Department of Oral and Maxillofacial Surgery, Peking University School and Hospital of Stomatology, Beijing, China;2. Resident, Department of Oral and Maxillofacial Radiology, Peking University School and Hospital of Stomatology, Beijing, China;3. Professor, Department of Oral and Maxillofacial Surgery, Peking University School and Hospital of Stomatology, Beijing, China;4. Professor, Department of Oral and Maxillofacial Radiology, Peking University School and Hospital of Stomatology, Beijing, China;6. AO Visiting Fellow, Department of Oral and Maxillofacial Surgery, Peking University School and Hospital of Stomatology, Beijing, China; Consultant, Department of Oral and Maxillofacial Surgery, Karolinska University Hospital, Stockholm, Sweden;5. Professor, Department of Oral and Maxillofacial Surgery, Peking University School and Hospital of Stomatology, Beijing, China;1. Department of Oral and Maxillofacial Surgery, Faculty of Dentistry, Baskent University, Ankara, Turkey;2. Division of Oral and Maxillofacial Surgery, Dental School of Araraquara, São Paulo State University – UNESP, Araraquara, São Paulo, Brazil;3. Department of Prosthodontics, Dental School of Araraquara, São Paulo State University – UNESP, Araraquara, São Paulo, Brazil;4. Section of Oral Radiology, Department of Dentistry, Faculty of Health, Aarhus University, Denmark;1. Postgraduate Program in Dentistry, Dental School, Federal University of Uberlândia, Uberlândia, MG, Brazil;2. Department of Oral and Maxillofacial Surgery, Santa Izabel Hospital, Salvador, BA, Brazil;3. Dental School, Federal University of Bahia, Salvador, BA, Brazil;4. Department of Oral and Maxillofacial Surgery, Santa Izabel Hospital, Postgraduate Program in Dentistry, Dental School, Federal, University of Bahia, Salvador, BA, Brazil;5. Postgraduate Program in Human Pathology and Dentistry, Dental School, Federal University of Bahia, Salvador, BA, Brazil |
| |
| Abstract: | IntroductionThe aim of this investigation was to compare the skeletal stability of three different rigid fixation methods after mandibular advancement.Material and methodsFifty-five class II malocclusion patients treated with the use of bilateral sagittal split ramus osteotomy and mandibular advancement were selected for this retrospective study. Group 1 (n = 17) had miniplates with monocortical screws, Group 2 (n = 16) had bicortical screws and Group 3 (n = 22) had the osteotomy fixed by means of the hybrid technique. Cephalograms were taken preoperatively, 1 week within the postoperative care period, and 6 months after the orthognathic surgery. Linear and angular changes of the cephalometric landmarks of the chin region were measured at each period, and the changes at each cephalometric landmark were determined for the time gaps. Postoperative changes in the mandibular shape were analyzed to determine the stability of fixation methods.ResultsThere was minimum difference in the relapse of the mandibular advancement among the three groups. Statistical analysis showed no significant difference in postoperative stability. However, a positive correlation between the amount of advancement and the amount of postoperative relapse was demonstrated by the linear multiple regression test (p < 0.05).ConclusionIt can be concluded that all techniques can be used to obtain stable postoperative results in mandibular advancement after 6 months. |
| |
| Keywords: | Rigid internal fixation Orthognathic surgery Mandibular osteotomy Skeletal relapse |
| 本文献已被 ScienceDirect 等数据库收录！ |
|
