Advertisement

Transverse Changes in Mandible Following Bilateral Sagittal Split Ramus Osteotomy Advancement

  • Tushar Deshmukh
  • N. K. Sahoo
Original Article

Abstract

Background

BSSRO is the most frequently performed surgical procedure for mandibular advancement. However, the effect of advancement on proximal segment is not clearly understood.

Aim and Objectives

The aim of the study was to evaluate the radiographic transverse changes in mandible following BSSRO advancement and to compare the amount of transverse displacement of the proximal segment with the amount of surgical advancement.

Materials and Methods

Twelve cases of skeletal class II deformity undergoing fixed orthodontic mechanotherapy and requiring mandibular advancement were selected for the study. Pre-operative (T0) PA ceph and OPG were used to measure the linear distances from right to left Co–Go, Go–Me, Go–Go, Co–Co, Rp–Rp and Co–Me points. The cases were operated for BSSRO mandibular advancement. Post-operative (T1) PA ceph and OPG were used to compare the changes in linear measurements.

Result

There were six male and six female patients with an average age of 19.5 years. The average mandibular advancement was 6.5 mm. Post-operative radiographic changes in transverse measurements of Go–Me, Go–Go, Co–Co, Rp–Rp and Co–Me were statistical significant. The changes in Co–Go measurements were statistically not significant. We could not establish any correlation between mandibular advancement and amount of transverse changes.

Conclusion

Significant changes were noticed in transverse dimensions of mandible following BSSRO advancement in both PA ceph and OPG. The transverse changes had no clinical implication during the post-operative follow-up.

Keywords

PA ceph OPG BSSRO Transverse changes 

Notes

Compliance with Ethical Standards

Conflict of interest

The authors declare that they have no conflict of interest.

Ethical Approval

All procedures performed in studies involving human participants were in accordance with the ethical standards of the institutional and/or national research committee and with the 1964 Declaration of Helsinki and its later amendments or comparable ethical standards.

References

  1. 1.
    Schreuder WH, Jansma J, Bierman MWJ, Vissink A (2007) Distraction osteogenesis versus bilateral sagittal split osteotomy for advancement of the retrognathic mandible: a review of the literature. Int J Oral Maxillofac Surg 36(2):103–110CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Tucker MR (2002) Management of severe mandibular retrognathia in the adult patient using traditional orthognathic surgery. J Oral Maxillofac Surg 60(11):1334–1340CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Bell WH, Schendel SA (1977) Biologic basis for modification of the sagittal ramus split operation. J Oral Surg 35(5):362–369Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Arnett GW, Tamborello JA, Rathbone JA (1992) Temporomandibular joint ramifications of orthognathic surgery. In: Bell WH (ed) Modern practice in orthognathic and reconstructive surgery, 2nd edn. Saunders, Philadelphia, pp 522–594Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Becktor JP, Rebellato J, Becktor KB, Isaksson S, Vickers PD, Keller EE (2002) Transverse displacement of the proximal segment after bilateral sagittal osteotomy. J Oral Maxillofac Surg 60(4):395–403CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Becktor JP, Rebellato J, Sollenius O, Vedtofte P, Isaksson S (2008) Transverse displacement of the proximal segment after bilateral sagittal osteotomy comparison of lag screw fixation versus miniplates with monocortical screw technique. J Oral Maxillofac Surg 66(1):104–111CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Kundert M, Hadjianghelou O (1980) Condylar displacement after sagittal splitting of the mandibular rami. A short-term radiographic study. J Maxillofac Surg 8(4):278–287CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Spitzer W, Rettinger G, Sitzmann F (1984) Computerized tomography examination for the detection of positional changes in the temporomandibular joint after ramus osteotomies with screw fixation. J Maxillofac Surg 12(3):139–142CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Alder ME, Deahl ST, Matteson SR, Van Sickels JE, Tiner BD, Rugh JD (1999) Short-term changes of condylar position after sagittal split osteotomy for mandibular advancement. Oral Surg Oral Med Oral Pathol Oral Radiol Endod 87(2):159–165CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Harris MD, Van Sickels JE, Alder M (1999) Factors influencing condylar position after the bilateral sagittal split osteotomy fixed with bicortical screws. J Oral Maxillofac Surg 57(6):650–655CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Tai B, Goonewardene MS, Murray K, Koong B, Islam SM (2014) The reliability of using postero-anterior cephalometry and cone-beam CT to determine transverse dimensions in clinical practice. Aust Orthod J 30(2):132–142PubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Prabhakar R, Rajakumar P, Karthikeyan MK, Saravanan R, Vikram NR, Reddy A (2014) A hard tissue cephalometric comparative study between hand tracing and computerized tracing. J Pharm Bioallied Sci 6(1):101–106CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Uysal T, Baysal A, Yagci A (2009) Evaluation of speed, repeatability, and reproducibility of digital radiography with manual versus computer-assisted cephalometric analyses. Eur J Orthod 31(5):523–528CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Dal Pont G (1961) Retromolar osteotomy for the correction of prognathism. J Oral Surg Anesth Hosp Dent Serv 19:42–47Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    Valladares- Nato J, Cevidanes LH, Rocha WC, Almedia G, Paiva JB, Neto R (2014) TMJ response to mandibular advancement surgery: an overview of risk factors. J Appl Oral Sci 22(1):2–14CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Dolce C, van Sickels JE, Bays RA, Rugh JD (2000) Skeletal stability after mandibular advancement with rigid versus wire fixation. J Oral Maxillofac Surg 58(11):1219–1227CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Ongkosuwito EM, Dieleman MM, Kuijpers-Jagtman AM, Mulder PG, van Neck JW (2009) Linear mandibular measurements: comparison between orthopantomograms and lateral cephalograms. Cleft Palate Craniofac J 46(2):147–153CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Sim Y, Carlson DS, McNamara JA Jr (1995) Condylar adaptation after alteration of vertical dimension in adult rhesus monkeys, Macaca mulatta. Cranio 13(3):182–187CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© The Association of Oral and Maxillofacial Surgeons of India 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Oral and Maxillofacial Surgery8 AFDCKanpurIndia
  2. 2.Oral and Maxillofacial SurgeryCMDC (CC)LucknowIndia

Personalised recommendations