journal article·2022-02-11Open access

Changes and Remodeling of Intersegmental Interferences following Bilateral Sagittal Split Ramus Osteotomy in Patients with Mandibular Prognathism

Min-A Jeon, George K. Sándor, Edward Chengchuan Ko, Yong-Deok Kim

Applied Sciences· Volume 12· Issue 4

Abstract

Purpose: This study aimed to measure the amount of change in the mandibular angle, intergonial width, and ramus angulation due to intersegmental interference and changes in condyle position after mandibular bilateral sagittal split ramus osteotomy (BSSRO) in patients with mandibular prognathism and to evaluate the correlation between them. Materials and Methods: A total of 32 patients who underwent mandibular setback using the BSSRO of the mandible to manage skeletal prognathism during the years 2018 to 2020 at the Department of Oral and Maxillofacial Surgery, Pusan National University were followed both clinically and with cone beam computed tomography (CBCT) for at least one year. Those who were also treated with genioplasty or other orthognathic surgery were excluded from the study. The mandibular angle (gonial angle: Ar–Go–Me), intergonial width (Go–Go), and total angle (sum of left and right proximal segmental angle) were recorded. Changes in the ramus were compared and analyzed before surgery (T1), immediately after surgery (T2), and one year following surgery (T3). Results: The mandibular angle increased by an average of 0.14 degrees immediately after surgery (T2–T1) and increased by 0.97 degrees at 12 months postoperatively (T3–T2). No correlation was observed with the amount of change in each group relative to the amount of mandibular setback. The mandibular width decreased by 0.01 mm on average immediately after surgery (T2–T1), and by 4.2 mm on average at 12 months after surgery (T3–T2). The angle of the mesial fragment of the mandible increased by 1.04 degrees immediately after surgery (T2–T1), compared to the preoperative state. It decreased by 0.86 degrees at 12 months postoperatively (T3–T2). Conclusion: The increase in the mandibular angle from immediately after surgery to 12 months after BSSRO reflects the counterclockwise rotational tendency to prevent opening restriction when intentionally selecting the condylar position. The decrease in the intergonial width immediately after surgery is thought to be due to the effect of internal trimming to minimize the bone interference between the outer surface of the distal bone fragment and the inner surface of the mesial fragment, and the decrease 1 year after surgery can be considered to be due to bone remodeling. Interosseous interference during mandibular setback osteotomy does not necessarily cause an increase in the width of the mandibular angle after surgery.
Source: crossref · Quality: baseline

Research context

OpenAlex topics: Orthodontics and Dentofacial Orthopedics · Craniofacial Disorders and Treatments · Cleft Lip and Palate Research

SciVX discovery tags are terminology-based. OpenAlex topics are source-provided classifications.

Affiliations

Department of Oral and Maxillofacial Surgery, School of Dentistry, Pusan National University, Mulgeum, Yangsan 50612, Korea

Dental and Life Science Institute, School of Dentistry, Pusan National University, Yangsan 50612, Korea

Dental Research Institute, Pusan National University Dental Hospital, Yangsan 50612, Korea

Department of Oral and Maxillofacial Surgery, University of Oulu, Oulu University Hospital, 90220 Oulu, Finland

Department of Oral and Maxillofacial Surgery, Kaohsiung Medical University, Kaohsiung 80708, Taiwan

References (31)

Show source-provided references
1. Factors influencing the predictability of soft tissue profile changes following mandibular setback surgery
2. Changes in soft tissue profile after mandibular setback surgery in Class III subjects10.1016/j.ijom.2008.12.005 ↗
3. Stability and effect on the soft tissue profile of mandibular setback with sagittal split osteotomy and rigid internal fixation
4. Stability of simultaneous mobilization of the maxilla and mandible utilizing internal rigid fixation
5. Stability after surgical-orthodontic correction of skeletal Class III malocclusion. I. Mandibular setback
6. Transverse displacement of the proximal segment after bilateral sagittal osteotomy10.1053/joms.2002.31227 ↗
7. Comparison of relapse in bilateral sagittal split osteotomies for mandibular advancement: Rigid internal fixation (screws) versus inferior border wiring with anterior skeletal fixation
8. The sagittal ramus osteotomy stability of fixation with internal miniplates10.1016/S0901-5027(05)80753-2 ↗
9. Self-Reinforced Biodegradable Screw Fixation Compared with Titanium Screw Fixation in Mandibular Advancement10.1016/j.joms.2005.09.011 ↗
10. Sagittal split advancement osteotomy: Comparison of the tendency to relapse after two different methods of rigid fixation10.1080/02844310701270299 ↗
11. Stability after Bilateral Sagittal Split Osteotomy Advancement Surgery with Rigid Internal Fixation: A Systematic Review10.1016/j.joms.2008.06.060 ↗
12. Factors contributing to relapse in rigidly fixed mandibular setbacks10.1016/0278-2391(89)90276-0 ↗
13. Postoperative stability following bilateral intraoral vertical ramus osteotomy based on amount of setback10.1016/j.bjoms.2013.02.001 ↗
14. Skeletal Stability after Simultaneous Mandibular Angle Resection and Sagittal Split Ramus Osteotomy for Correction of Mandible Prognathism10.1016/j.joms.2005.12.064 ↗
15. Orthognathic Surgery for Correction of Patients with Mandibular Excess: Don’t Forget to Assess the Gonial Angle10.1016/j.joms.2012.12.012 ↗
16. Interferences between mandibular proximal and distal segments in orthognathic surgery for patients with asymmetric mandibular prognathism depending on different osteotomy techniques10.1016/j.tripleo.2009.12.049 ↗
17. Relapse after SSRO for mandibular setback movement in relation to the amount of mandibular setback and intraoperative clockwise rotation of the proximal segment10.1016/j.jcms.2013.11.018 ↗
18. Transverse and sagittal angulations of proximal segment after sagittal split and vertical ramus osteotomies and their influence on the stability of distal segment10.1016/j.jfma.2012.02.013 ↗
19. Change in Condylar Long Axis and Skeletal Stability Following Sagittal Split Ramus Osteotomy and Intraoral Vertical Ramus Osteotomy for Mandibular Prognathia10.1016/j.joms.2005.06.013 ↗
20. Refinement in aesthetic contouring of the prominent mandibular angle10.1007/BF00449796 ↗
21. Mandibular contouring surgery for purely aesthetic reasons10.1007/BF02273834 ↗
22. Unfavorable results and their resolution in mandibular contouring surgery10.1007/BF00209317 ↗
23. Three-dimensional computed tomography evaluation of postsurgical condylar displacement after mandibular osteotomy10.1016/S1079-2104(98)90059-2 ↗
24. Movement of the proximal and distal segments after mandibular ramus osteotomies
25. Surgical Correction of Mandibular Prognathism by the Oblique Sliding Osteotomy: A Clinical and Radiological Follow-Up Study of 112 Consecutive Cases
26. Positional changes in the mandibular condyle and amount of mouth opening after sagittal split ramus osteotomy with rigid or nonrigid osteosynthesis10.1016/S0278-2391(97)90572-3 ↗
27. Mandibular rami osteotomies and their effect on the gonial angle10.1016/S0300-9785(81)80050-6 ↗
28. Hard and Soft Tissue Stability of Orthognathic Surgery10.2319/122707-604.1 ↗
29. Vertical Ramus Versus Sagittal Split Osteotomies: Comparison of Stability after Mandibular Setback10.1016/j.joms.2007.09.008 ↗
30. Effect of Mandibular Setback via Bilateral Sagittal Split Ramus Osteotomy on Transverse Displacement of the Proximal Segment10.1016/j.joms.2004.06.064 ↗
31. Classification and Treatment of Prominent Mandibular Angle10.1007/s002660010150 ↗