Advertisement

Aesthetic Plastic Surgery

, Volume 19, Issue 1, pp 93–102 | Cite as

Unfavorable results and their resolution in mandibular contouring surgery

  • Doo Byung Yang
  • Hong Shick Song
  • Chul Gyoo Park
Article

Abstract

Since the development of mandibular contouring surgery, there have been many unfavorable results due to technical reasons. Those results include asymmetry, undercorrection, overcorrection, and an incorrect contour line. Over three years the authors have analyzed 19 cases of unfavorable results and found the following: (1) There have been 7 cases of undercorrection, 5 cases of asymmetry, 5 cases of incorrect contour line, and 2 cases of overcorrection. (2) The main technical errors that cause unfavorable results seem to be the simple straight cutting of mandible angles instead of curved cutting using multistaged curved ostectomy. (3) We suggest that the basic way to prevent unfavorable results in mandibular contouring surgery is to contour the mandible, including angle, body, and symphysis, as a whole by way of multistaged curved ostectomy.

Key words

Mandible contouring Straight cutting of mandible Multistaged curved ostectomy 

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. 1.
    Baek SM, Kim SS, Bindiger A: The prominent mandibular angle: Preoperative management, operative technique, and results in 42 patients. Plast Reconstr Surg 83:272, 1989Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Baker JH, Hall-Craggs ECB: Changes in length of sarcomeres following tenotomy of the rat soleus muscle. Anat Rec 192:55, 1978Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Converse JM: Deformities of the jaws. In: Converse JM (ed): Reconstructive Plastic Surgery. Philadelphia: W.B. Saunders, 1977Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Gurney CE: Chronic bilateral benign hypertrophy of the masseter muscles. Am J Surg 73:137, 1947Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Legg JW: Enlargement of the temporal and masseter muscles on both sides. Trans Pathol Soc (London) 31:361, 1880Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Master F, Georgiade NG, Pickrell K: The surgical treatment of benign masseteric hypertrophy. Plast Reconstr Surg 15:220, 1955Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Maxwell LC, Carlson DS, McNamara JA, et al: Adaptation of the masseter muscles following alteration in length, with or without surgical detachment. Anat Rec 200:127, 1981Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    McCarthy JG, Kawamoto H, Grayson BH, et al: Surgery of the jaws. In: McCarthy JG (ed): Plastic Surgery. Philadelphia, W.B. Saunders, 1990, p 1301Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Riefkohl R, Georgiade GS, Georgiade NG: Masseter muscle hypertrophy. Ann Plast Surg 12:528, 1984Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    Tabary JC, Tabary C, Tardien C, et al: Physiological and structural changes in cat's soleus muscle due to immobilization at different lengths by plaster casts. J Physiol 224:231, 1972Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    Whitaker LA: Aesthetic contouring of the facial support system. Clin Plast Surg 16:815, 1989Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    Whitaker LA: Aesthetic augmentation of the posterior mandible. Plast Reconstr Surg 87:268, 1991Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    Yang DB, Park CG: Mandibular contouring surgery for purely aesthetic reasons. Aesth Plast Surg 15:53, 1991Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag 1995

Authors and Affiliations

  • Doo Byung Yang
    • 1
  • Hong Shick Song
    • 1
  • Chul Gyoo Park
    • 1
  1. 1.Jelim Aesthetic Plastic Surgical ClinicKangnam-ku, SeoulKorea

Personalised recommendations