Skip to main content

Advertisement

SpringerLink
Log in

Does the type of sagittal split ramus osteotomy influence fixation strength? Evaluation of the mechanical behavior of two types of fixation used in three types of sagittal split ramus osteotomy

  • Original Article
  • Published:
Oral and Maxillofacial Surgery Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract 

Purpose

This study compared the mechanical behavior of two fixation techniques used in three sections representing the sagittal split ramus osteotomy (SSRO) in polyurethane replicas that were divided into groups, according to type of section, and sub-groups according to type of fixation, simulating 11-mm advancement and 6º clockwise mandibular rotation.

Methods

Loads were applied in two regions, aiming at progressive application and consequent strength value, measured in kilogram-force in displacements of 1, 3, 5, and 7 mm, from the load application tip. Shapiro–Wilk test was performed, followed by two-way analysis of variance (ANOVA-2 way), and Bonferroni’s multiple comparison.

Results

The results showed no statistically significant difference in the type of section and type of fixation used when load was applied to the inter-incisor region. However, when load was applied to the first molar region, statistically significant difference was observed in 1-mm displacement, in which section described by Epker with two modifications showed greater strength, regardless of type of fixation used (p = 0.007).

Conclusion

In the application of load in the inter-incisor region, there was no statistical difference between the type of osteotomy and the type of fixation used. When applying loads to molars, there was a difference for the type of osteotomy, where the Epker osteotomy with 2 modifications presented greater resistance, regardless of the type of fixation used.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1
Fig. 2

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. Möhlhenrich SC, Kniha K, Peters F, Ayoub N, Goloborodko E, Hölzle F, Fritz U, Modabber A (2017) Fracture patterns after bilateral sagittal split osteotomy of the mandibular ramus according to the Obwegeser/Dal Pont and Hunsuck/Epker modifications. J Craniomaxillofac Surg 45(5):762–767. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jcms.2017.02.012

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  2. Foley WL, Frost DE, Paulin WB Jr, Tucker MR (1989) Internal screw fixation: comparison of placement pattern and rigidity. J Oral Maxillofac Surg 47(7):720–723

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  3. de Carvalho PHM, Oliveira SDS, Favaro M, Sverzut CE, Trivellato AE (2021) Which type of method shows the best mechanical behavior for internal fixation of bilateral sagittal split osteotomy in major advancements with clockwise rotation? Comparison of four methods. Oral Maxillofac Surg 25(1):27–34. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10006-020-00883-2

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  4. Dal Pont G (1961) Retromolar osteotomy for the correction of prognathism. J Oral Surg 19:42

    Google Scholar 

  5. Hunsuck EE (1968) A modified intraoral sagittal splitting technique for correction of mandibular prognathism. J Oral Surg 26:250

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  6. Epker BN (1977) Modifications in the sagittal osteotomy of the mandible. J OralSurg 35(2):157–159

    CAS  Google Scholar 

  7. Wolford LM, Bennett MA, Rafferty CG (1987) Modification of the mandibular ramus sagittal split osteotomy. Oral Surg Oral Med Oral Pathol 64(2):146–155

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  8. Wolford LM, Davis WM Jr. The mandibular inferior border split: a modification in the sagittal split osteotomy. J Oral Maxillofac Surg. 1990.

  9. Kim HC, Essaki S, Kameyama T (1995) Comparison of screw placement patterns on the rigidity of the sagittal split ramus osteotomy: technical note. J Craniomaxillofac Surg 23(1):54–56

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  10. Peterson GP, Haug RH, Van Sickels J (2005) A biomechanical evaluation of bilateralsagittal ramus osteotomy fixation techniques. J Oral Maxillofac Surg 63(9):1317–1324

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  11. Van Sickels JE, Peterson GP, Holms S, Haug RH (2005) An in vitro comparison of an adjustable bone fixation system. J Oral Maxillofac Surg 63:1620–1625

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  12. Aymach Z, Nei H, Kawamura H, Bell W (2011) Biomechanical evaluation of a T-shaped miniplate fixation of a modified sagittal split ramus osteotomy with buccal step, a new technique for mandibular orthognathic surgery. Oral Surg Oral Med Oral Pathol Oral RadiolEndod 111(1):58–63. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tripleo.2010.03.028

    Article  Google Scholar 

  13. Sener I, Arici S, Bereket C, Tek M (2011) In vitro biomechanical evaluation of modified plating techniques for bilateral sagittal split ramus osteotomy with buccal step, a new technique for mandibular orthognathic surgery. Oral Surg Oral Med Oral Pathol Oral RadiolEndod 111:58–63

    Article  Google Scholar 

  14. Ulu M, Soylu E, Kelebek S, Dikici S, Oflaz H (2018) Comparative study of biomechanical stability of resorbable and titanium fixation systems after sagittal split ramus osteotomy with a novel designed in vitro testing unit. J Craniomaxillofac Surg 46(2):299–304. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jcms.2017.11.024

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  15. De Oliveira LB, Reis JMN, Spin-Neto R, Gabrielli MAC, Oguz Y, Pereira-Filho VA (2016) Mechanical evaluation of six techniques for stable fixation of the sagittal split osteotomy after counterclockwise mandibular advancement. Br J Oral Maxillofac Surg 54(5):573–578. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.bjoms.2016.03.002

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  16. Klein GB, Mendes GC, Ribeiro Junior PD, Viswanath A, Papageorge M (2017) Biomechanical evaluation of different osteosynthesis methods after mandibular sagittal split osteotomy in major advancements. Int J Oral MaxillofacSurg 46(11):1387–1393. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijom.2017.05.016

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  17. Peterson GP, Haug RH, Van Sickels J (2005) A biomechanical evaluation of bilateral sagittal ramus osteotomy fixation techniques. J Oral Maxillofac Surg 63(9):1317–1324. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.joms.2005.05.301

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  18. Foley WL, Frost DE, Paulin WB Jr, Tucker MR (1989) Internal screw fixation: comparison of placement pattern and rigidity. J Oral Maxillofac Surg 47(7):720–723. https://doi.org/10.1016/s0278-2391(89)80013-8

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  19. Anucul B, Waite PD, Lemons JE (1992) In vitro strength analysis of sagittal split osteotomy fixation: noncompression monocortical plates versus bicortical position screws. J Oral Maxillofac Surg 50(12):1295–1299. https://doi.org/10.1016/0278-2391(92)90230-w

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  20. Chuong CJ, Borotikar B, Schwartz-Dabney C, Sinn DP (2005) Mechanical characteristics of the mandible after bilateral sagittal split ramus osteotomy: comparing 2 different fixation techniques. J Oral MaxillofacSurg 63(1):68–76. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.joms.2003.12.045

    Article  Google Scholar 

  21. Brasileiro BF, Grempel RG, Ambrosano GMB, Passeri LA (2009) An in vitro evaluation of rigid internal fixation techniques for sagittal split ramus osteotomies: advancement surgery. J Oral MaxillofacSurg 67(4):809–817. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.joms.2008.11.009

    Article  Google Scholar 

  22. Pereira Filho VA, Iamashita HY, Monnazzi MS, Gabrielli MF, Vaz LG, Passeri LA (2013) In vitro biomechanical evaluation of sagittal split osteotomy fixation with a specifically designed miniplate. Int J Oral Maxillofac Surg 42(3):316–320. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijom.2012.07.008

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  23. Pozzer L, Olate S, Cavalieri-Pereira L, de Moraes M, Albergaría-Barbosa JR (2014) Influence of the design in sagittal split ramus osteotomy on the mechanical behavior. Int J ClinExp Med 7:1284–1288

    Google Scholar 

  24. Vieira Santos ZTB, Goulart DR, Sigua-Rodriguez EA, Pozzer L, Olate S, Albergaria-Barbosa JR (2017) Mechanical evaluation of the use of conventional andlocking miniplate/screw systems used in sagittal split ramus osteotomy. J Korean Assoc Oral Maxillofac Surg 43(2):77–82

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  25. Sato FR, Asprino L, Consani S, Noritomi PY, de Moreas M (2012) A comparative evaluation of the hybrid technique for fixation of the sagittal split ramus osteotomy in mandibular advancement by mechanical, photoelastic, and finite element analysis. Oral Surg Oral Med Oral Pathol Oral Radiol. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tripleo.2011.08.027

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  26. Gursoytrak B, Unsal N, Demetoglu U, Simsek HO, Saglam H, Dolanmaz D (2018) Biomechanıcal evaluatıon of hybrid fixatıon method of sagittal split ramus osteotomy in mandibularadvancement. Journal of Cranio-Maxillofacial Surgery 46(12):2063–2068. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jcms.2018.05.005

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  27. Ueki K, Moroi A, Yoshizawa K, Hotta A, Tsutsui T, Fukaya K, Hiraide R, Takayama A, Tsunoda T, Saito Y (2017) Comparison of skeletal stability after sagittal split ramus osteotomy among mono-cortical plate fixation, bi-cortical plate fixation, and hybrid fixation using absorbable plates and screws. J Craniomaxillofac Surg 45(2):178–182

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

Download references

Funding

The authors received support and supply from Tóride Indústria e Comércio Ltda for internal fixation materials used and Coordenação de Aperfeiçoamento de Pessoal de Nível Superior—Brasil (CAPES),—Finance Code 001.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. School of Dentistry of Ribeirão Preto (FORP-USP), University of São Paulo, Avenida Do Café, S/NRibeirão Preto, São Paulo, 14040-904, Brazil

    Soraya da Silva Oliveira, Pedro Henrique Mattos de Carvalho, Cássio Edvard Sverzut & Alexandre Elias Trivellato

Authors
  1. Soraya da Silva Oliveira
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Pedro Henrique Mattos de Carvalho
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Cássio Edvard Sverzut
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Alexandre Elias Trivellato
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Alexandre Elias Trivellato.

Ethics declarations

Conflict of interest

The authors declare no competing interests.

Additional information

Publisher's Note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

da Silva Oliveira, S., de Carvalho, P.H.M., Sverzut, C.E. et al. Does the type of sagittal split ramus osteotomy influence fixation strength? Evaluation of the mechanical behavior of two types of fixation used in three types of sagittal split ramus osteotomy. Oral Maxillofac Surg 26, 633–639 (2022). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10006-022-01038-1

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10006-022-01038-1

Keywords

Search

Navigation