» Articles » PMID: 26225013

Skeletal Relapse After Mandibular Setback in Bi Max Surgery: Intraoral Vertical Ramus Versus Bilateral Sagittal Split Osteotomies

Overview
Date 2015 Jul 31
PMID 26225013
Citations 4
Authors
Affiliations
Soon will be listed here.
Abstract

Objectives: This study aimed to measure and compare the postoperative horizontal and vertical changes (relapse) that occur at B point and pogonion after intraoral vertical ramus osteotomy (IVRO) without fixation and bilateral sagittal split osteotomy (BSSO) with semi rigid internal fixation in bimax surgery.

Materials And Methods: Eleven patients with skeletal class III malocclusion mandibular prognathism and maxillary hypoplasia were chosen. Six cases underwent BSSO; and five IVRO. All patients underwent Lefort I osteotomy without genioplasty.

Result: Postoperative changes (relapse) of B-point and pogonion in horizontal and vertical axes from 1 week post operatively (T0) to 1 year post operatively (T2) were assessed and the percentage of relapse of each point and each axis was compared. It was noted that the horizontal relapse in IVRO was 27.7 % at B point and 40.6 % at pogonion while, in BSSO group it was noted that the horizontal relapse was 28.1 % at B point and a greater number i.e., 40.9 % at pogonion.

Conclusion: The percentage of horizontal relapse after IVRO without fixation is equal to that after BSSO with semi rigid internal fixation.

Citing Articles

The Predictability of the Surgical Outcomes of Class III Patients in the Transverse Dimension-A Study of Three-Dimensional Assessment.

Lai U, Wu C, Chang Y, Lin S, Lai J, Wu T J Pers Med. 2022; 12(7).

PMID: 35887645 PMC: 9316286. DOI: 10.3390/jpm12071147.


Skeletal Stability after Mandibular Setback via Sagittal Split Ramus Osteotomy Verse Intraoral Vertical Ramus Osteotomy: A Systematic Review.

Chen C, Hwang D, Hsiao S, Chen H, Hsu K J Clin Med. 2021; 10(21).

PMID: 34768470 PMC: 8584578. DOI: 10.3390/jcm10214950.


Correction of Condylar Displacement of the Mandible Using Early Screw Removal following Patient-Customized Orthognathic Surgery.

Jang W, Byun S, Cho S, Park I, Yi S, Kim J J Clin Med. 2021; 10(8).

PMID: 33918920 PMC: 8069139. DOI: 10.3390/jcm10081597.


The Direction of Double-Jaw Surgery Relapse for Correction of Skeletal Class III Deformity: Bilateral Sagittal Split Versus Intraoral Vertical Ramus Setback Osteotomies.

Al-Delayme R, Alsagban A, Ahmed F, Farag A, Al-Allaq T, Virdee P J Maxillofac Oral Surg. 2019; 18(2):280-287.

PMID: 30996552 PMC: 6441429. DOI: 10.1007/s12663-018-1127-y.

References
1.
Morrill L, Baumrind S, Miller D . Surgical correction of mandibular prognathism. I. A cephalometric report. Am J Orthod. 1974; 65(5):503-18. DOI: 10.1016/0002-9416(74)90032-3. View

2.
Ghali G, Sikes Jr J . Intraoral vertical ramus osteotomy as the preferred treatment for mandibular prognathism. J Oral Maxillofac Surg. 2000; 58(3):313-5. DOI: 10.1016/s0278-2391(00)90063-6. View

3.
Bell W, Yamaguchi Y, POOR M . Treatment of temporomandibular joint dysfunction by intraoral vertical ramus osteotomy. Int J Adult Orthodon Orthognath Surg. 1990; 5(1):9-27. View

4.
Krekmanov L, Lilja J . Orthognathic surgery with no postoperative intermaxillary fixation. Scand J Plast Reconstr Surg Hand Surg. 1987; 21(2):189-97. DOI: 10.3109/02844318709078099. View

5.
Wolford L . The sagittal split ramus osteotomy as the preferred treatment for mandibular prognathism. J Oral Maxillofac Surg. 2000; 58(3):310-2. DOI: 10.1016/s0278-2391(00)90062-4. View