Advertisement

Sagittal Resection of the Mandible: Are We Doing Right?

  • Sanghoon Park
Chapter

Abstract

  1. 1.

    Sagittal resection of mandible has an important role in reducing the lower facial width.

     
  2. 2.

    Conventional method of sagittal resection focused on removing the lateral mandibular cortex in the posterior ramus and mandible angle region, which has the problems and leads to the misunderstanding.

     
  3. 3.

    The widest part of the mandible is the gonial area in straight or outcurved mandible type, but maximal ramus point in incurved mandible type. After contouring ostectomy, this maximal ramus point is 1–2 cm anterior to the posterior border of the mandible.

     
  4. 4.

    The thickest portion of the mandible is the junctional area between the ramus and body along the oblique line.

     
  5. 5.

    Instead of splitting angular part of the mandible, geographic sagittal resection of the mandibular body should include the maximal body point (MBP) and maximal ramus point (MRP) to maximize the effect.

     

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. 1989;83:272–80.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Yang DB, Park CG. Mandibular contouring surgery for purely aesthetic reasons. Aesthet Plast Surg. 1991;15:53–60.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Baek SM, Baek RM, Shin MS. Refinement in aesthetic contouring of the prominent mandibular angle. Aesthet Plast Surg. 1994;18:283–9.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Deguchi M, Iio Y, Kobayashi K, Shirakabe T. Angle-splitting ostectomy for reducing the width of the lower face. Plast Reconstr Surg. 1997;99:1831–9.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Han K, Kim J. Reduction mandibuloplasty: Ostectomy of the lateral cortex around the mandibular angle. J Craniofac Surg. 2001;12:314–25.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Jin H, Kim BG. Mandibular angle reduction versus mandible reduction. Plast Reconstr Surg. 2004;114:1263–9.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Jin H, Park SH, Kim BH. Sagittal split ramus osteotomy with mandible reduction. Plast Reconstr Surg. 2007;119:662–9.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Jin H. Misconceptions about mandible reduction procedures. Aesthet Plast Surg. 2005;29:317–24.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Park MC, Kang M, Lim H. Mandibular tubercle resection: a means of maximizing the benefits of reduction mandibuloplasty. Plast Reconstr Surg. 2011;127:2076–82.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Cui J, Zhu S, Hu J, Li J, Luo E. The effect of different reduction mandibuloplasty types on lower face width and morphology. Aesthet Plast Surg. 2008;32:593–8.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Satoh K. Mandibular contouring surgery by angular contouring combined with genioplasty in Orientals. Plast Reconstr Surg. 2004;113:425–30.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Park S, Noh JH. Importance of the chin in lower facial contour: narrowing genioplasty to achieve a feminine and slim lower face. Plast Reconstr Surg. 2008;122:261–8.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Nature Singapore Pte Ltd. 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Center for Facial Bone Surgery, Department of Plastic SurgeryID HospitalSeoulSouth Korea

Personalised recommendations