Cone-beam Computed Tomography Evaluation on the Condylar Displacement Following Sagittal Split Ramus Osteotomy in Asymmetric Setback Patients: Comparison Between Conventional Approach and Surgery-first Approach

Overview

Journal Angle Orthod

Specialty Dentistry

Date 2017 May 23

PMID 28530843

Citations 4

Authors

Min-Hee Oh

Hyeon-Shik Hwang

Kyung-Min Lee

Jin-Hyoung Cho

Affiliations

Soon will be listed here.

Abstract

Objective: To compare the condylar displacement following sagittal split ramus osteotomy (SSRO) in asymmetric setback patients between the conventional approach and surgery-first approach and to determine whether the condylar displacement is affected by asymmetric setback in SSRO patients.

Materials And Methods: This was a retrospective study. The subjects consisted of patients with facial asymmetry who underwent SSRO and had cone-beam computed tomography taken before and 1 month after surgery. They were allocated into the conventional (n = 18) and surgery-first (SF) groups (n = 20). Descriptive, independent t-tests and Pearson correlation analysis were computed.

Results: The amount of condylar displacement in x-, y-, and z-directions and Euclidean distance showed no statistically significant differences between the conventional and SF groups. Comparing the postoperative condylar position with the preoperative position, the condylar displacement occurred in posterior (P < .05) and downward (P < .05) directions in both groups except on the deviated side in the conventional group. The condylar displacement occurred in a posterior (P < .05) direction on the deviated side of the conventional group. However, the condylar displacement in three dimensions showed no statistically significant differences between the two groups. In the correlation analysis, the condylar displacement in both the deviated and contralateral sides showed no significant correlation with asymmetric setback in either group.

Conclusion: The condylar displacement in three dimensions and the distance of condylar displacement in SSRO patients with facial asymmetry showed no significant difference between conventional and SF groups. Condylar displacement was not associated with asymmetric setback.

Citing Articles

Short-term and long-term alterations of condylar position after bilateral sagittal split ramus osteotomy for mandibular setback: A preliminary before-after clinical trial.

Sobouti F, Hadian H, Pakravan A, Rahimi Z, Rakhshan V, Dadgar S Dent Res J (Isfahan). 2022; 19:19.

PMID: 35308442 PMC: 8927962. DOI: 10.4103/1735-3327.338782.

Analysis of Sagittal Position Changes of the Condyle After Mandibular Setback Surgery Across the Four Different Types of Plating Systems.

Ku J, Choi S, Lee J, Yu H, Kim S, Kim Y J Craniofac Surg. 2021; 32(7):2441-2445.

PMID: 33710053 PMC: 8478309. DOI: 10.1097/SCS.0000000000007578.

Facial asymmetry correction: From conventional orthognathic treatment to surgery-first approach.

Hosseinzadeh Nik T, Gholamrezaei E, Keshvad M J Dent Res Dent Clin Dent Prospects. 2020; 13(4):311-320.

PMID: 32190216 PMC: 7072083. DOI: 10.15171/joddd.2019.047.

Positional change in mandibular condyle in facial asymmetric patients after orthognathic surgery: cone-beam computed tomography study.

Choi B, Kim B, Lim J, Jung J, Lee J, Ohe J Maxillofac Plast Reconstr Surg. 2018; 40(1):13.

PMID: 29984220 PMC: 6015790. DOI: 10.1186/s40902-018-0152-6.

References

Liou E, Chen P, Wang Y, Yu C, Huang C, Chen Y . Surgery-first accelerated orthognathic surgery: orthodontic guidelines and setup for model surgery. J Oral Maxillofac Surg. 2011; 69(3):771-80. DOI: 10.1016/j.joms.2010.11.011. View

FRANCO J, Van Sickels J, Thrash W . Factors contributing to relapse in rigidly fixed mandibular setbacks. J Oral Maxillofac Surg. 1989; 47(5):451-6. DOI: 10.1016/0278-2391(89)90276-0. View

BEHRMAN S, Behrman D . Oral surgeons' considerations in surgical orthodontic treatment. Dent Clin North Am. 1988; 32(3):481-507. View

Bell W, Creekmore T . Surgical-orthodontic correction of mandibular prognathism. Am J Orthod. 1973; 63(3):256-70. DOI: 10.1016/0002-9416(73)90351-5. View

Kim Y, Cho B, Jung Y, Son W, Park S . Cone-beam computerized tomography evaluation of condylar changes and stability following two-jaw surgery: Le Fort I osteotomy and mandibular setback surgery with rigid fixation. Oral Surg Oral Med Oral Pathol Oral Radiol Endod. 2010; 111(6):681-7. DOI: 10.1016/j.tripleo.2010.08.001. View

Choi J, Mah J . A new method for superimposition of CBCT volumes. J Clin Orthod. 2010; 44(5):303-12. View

Hu J, Wang D, Zou S . Effects of mandibular setback on the temporomandibular joint: a comparison of oblique and sagittal split ramus osteotomy. J Oral Maxillofac Surg. 2000; 58(4):375-80; discussion 380-1. DOI: 10.1016/s0278-2391(00)90915-7. View

Han Y, Jung Y, Song I, Lee S, Seo B . Three-Dimensional Computed Tomographic Assessment of Temporomandibular Joint Stability After Orthognathic Surgery. J Oral Maxillofac Surg. 2016; 74(7):1454-62. DOI: 10.1016/j.joms.2016.02.010. View

Komori E, Aigase K, Sugisaki M, Tanabe H . Cause of early skeletal relapse after mandibular setback. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop. 1989; 95(1):29-36. DOI: 10.1016/0889-5406(89)90132-7. View

10.

Liou E, Chen P, Wang Y, Yu C, Huang C, Chen Y . Surgery-first accelerated orthognathic surgery: postoperative rapid orthodontic tooth movement. J Oral Maxillofac Surg. 2011; 69(3):781-5. DOI: 10.1016/j.joms.2010.10.035. View

11.

Baek S, Ahn H, Kwon Y, Choi J . Surgery-first approach in skeletal class III malocclusion treated with 2-jaw surgery: evaluation of surgical movement and postoperative orthodontic treatment. J Craniofac Surg. 2010; 21(2):332-8. DOI: 10.1097/SCS.0b013e3181cf5fd4. View

12.

Grubb J, Evans C . Orthodontic management of dentofacial skeletal deformities. Clin Plast Surg. 2007; 34(3):403-15. DOI: 10.1016/j.cps.2007.05.002. View

13.

Liao Y, Chiu Y, Huang C, Ko E, Chen Y . Presurgical orthodontics versus no presurgical orthodontics: treatment outcome of surgical-orthodontic correction for skeletal class III open bite. Plast Reconstr Surg. 2010; 126(6):2074-2083. DOI: 10.1097/PRS.0b013e3181f52710. View

14.

Hwang H, Thiesen G, Araujo T, Perpetua Mota Freitas M, Motta A . An interview with Hyeon-Shik Hwang. Dental Press J Orthod. 2016; 21(1):24-33. PMC: 4816582. DOI: 10.1590/2177-6709.21.1.024-033.int. View

15.

Wang T, Han J, Oh H, Park H, Jung S, Kook M . Comparison of Orthodontics-First and Surgery-First Approach in Positional Changes of the Condyle After Mandibular Setback Surgery Using Three-Dimensional Analysis. J Oral Maxillofac Surg. 2016; 74(12):2487-2496. DOI: 10.1016/j.joms.2016.07.015. View

16.

Kim D, Baek S . Change in maxillary incisor inclination during surgical-orthodontic treatment of skeletal Class III malocclusion: comparison of extraction and nonextraction of the maxillary first premolars. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop. 2013; 143(3):324-35. DOI: 10.1016/j.ajodo.2012.10.014. View

17.

Luther F, Morris D, Hart C . Orthodontic preparation for orthognathic surgery: how long does it take and why? A retrospective study. Br J Oral Maxillofac Surg. 2003; 41(6):401-6. DOI: 10.1016/s0266-4356(03)00163-3. View

18.

Han J, Hwang S . Three-dimensional analysis of postoperative returning movement of perioperative condylar displacement after bilateral sagittal split ramus osteotomy for mandibular setback with different fixation methods. J Craniomaxillofac Surg. 2015; 43(9):1918-25. DOI: 10.1016/j.jcms.2015.08.004. View

19.

Bansal N, Singla J, Gera G, Gupta M, Kaur G . Reliability of natural head position in orthodontic diagnosis: A cephalometric study. Contemp Clin Dent. 2012; 3(2):180-3. PMC: 3425102. DOI: 10.4103/0976-237X.96824. View

20.

Schendel S, EPKER B . Results after mandibular advancement surgery: an analysis of 87 cases. J Oral Surg. 1980; 38(4):265-82. View