Evaluation of lingual fracture pattern of the mandible after bilateral sagittal split osteotomy with and without inferior border osteotomy

https://doi.org/10.53730/ijhs.v6nS2.4964

Authors

  • Arun Vignesh K. R Senior Lecturer, Department of Oral and Maxillofacial Surgery, SRM Dental College Ramapuram
  • Sankar D Professor, Department of Oral and Maxillofacial Surgery, Ragas Dental College,Chennai
  • Veerabahu M Professor & Head of the Department, Department of Oral and Maxillofacial Surgery, Ragas Dental College, Chennai
  • Elavenil Paneerselvam Professor, Department of Oral and Maxillofacial Surgery, SRM Dental College Ramapuram
  • Vivek Ganesh Clinical Practise, Ragas Dental College, Chennai
  • Jane Belinda Post Graduate student, Department of Periodontics, SRM Dental College, Ramapuram
  • Shubham Singh Undergraduate Student, Bachelor of Dental surgery
  • Rajkumar Bharathi Senior Lecturer, Department of Oral and Maxillofacial Surgery, VELS University

Keywords:

bilateral sagittal, cadaveric mandible, inferior alveolar nerve, modified lingual, split osteotomy

Abstract

The Purpose of the study was to evaluate the pattern of lingual split when performing a bilateral sagittal split osteotomy (BSSO) with different osteotomy methods. A total of 15 dry human cadaveric mandibles was taken for the study. The classical Epker technique of BSSO was performed on the left side. The same was done on the right side along with an-additional inferior border osteotomy. There resultant split was assessed based on modified lingual split scale. The maximum torque force that was needed to split the mandible was recorded and the fracture pattern was observed. Similar osteotomies were performed in 15 fresh goat mandibles which acted as control group. The human cadaveric dry mandible recorded an average torque of 12.6 +2.4 Nm (SD: 0.32) with a maximum of 16.0 Nm and a minimum of 8.0 Nm on left side.80% of the mandible were Type I fracture pattern and 20% had Type III fracture pattern. In contrast with the modified BSSO technique with an additional inferior border osteotomy required a maximal torque of 12.0 N and a minimal torque of 5.0 with an average required torque of 8.7 + 2.1 N on the right side of the mandible.

Downloads

Download data is not yet available.

References

ObwegeserH:A modification of lingual plastic surgery of the alveolar crest according to R. Trauner. SSO Schweiz MonatsschrZahnheilkd, 63, 788–799, 1953.

Dal Pont G: Retromolar osteotomy for the correction of prognathism, J Oral Surg Anesth Hosp Dent Serv, 19, 42–47, 1961

Epker BN: Modifications in the sagittal osteotomy of the mandible. J Oral Surg, 35, 157-159, 1977.

Wolford LM, Davis:The Mandibular Inferior Border Split: A Modification in the Sagittal Split Osteotomy. J Oral Maxillofac Surg 1990.

Plooij JM, Naphausen MTP, Maal TJJ, Rangel TXIFA, SwennnenG,Koning M, BorstlapWA,Berge SJ: 3D evaluation of the lingual fracture line after a bilateral sagittal split osteotomy of the mandible Int. J. Oral Maxillofac. Surg, 38, 1244–1249, 2009.

Jop P. Verweij ,GertjanMensink , Marta Fiocco , J.P. Richard van Merkesteyn, Presence of mandibular third molars during bilateral sagittal splitosteotomy increases the possibility of bad split but not the risk of other post-operative complications, J Craniomaxillofac Surg, 42, 2014.

Mensink G, Gooris PJ, Bergsma JE,: Bilateral sagittal split osteotomy in cadaveric pig mandibles: Evaluation of the lingual fracture line based on the use of splitters and separators, Oral Surg Oral Med Oral Pathol Oral Radiol, 116:281, 2013.

Mensink G, Gooris PJ, Bergsma EJ, Is the lingual fracture line influenced by the mandibular canal or the mylohyoid groove during a bilateral sagittal split osteotomy? A human cadaveric study, J Oral MaxillofacSurg, 72:973, 2014.

W. Semper-Hogg, M. A. Fuessinger, T. W. Dirlewanger, C. P. Cornelius, The influence of dexamethasone on postoperative swelling and neurosensory disturbances after orthognathic surgery: a randomized controlled clinical trial, Head Face Med, 13, 19-1, 2017.

De Lima VN, Lemos CA2, Faverani LP, Santiago Júnior JF,Effectiveness of Corticoid Administration in Orthognathic Surgery for Edema and Neurosensorial Disturbance: A Systematic Literature Review, J Oral Maxillofac Surg, 75(7),1-1528, 2017.

Sunanda Roychoudary,Neurosensory disturbances after bilateral sagittal split osteotomy- retrospective study. J Oral Biol Craniofac Res, (65-68), 2015.

Muto T, Takahashi M, Akizuki K: Evaluation of the mandibular ramus fracture line after sagittal split ramus osteotomy using 3-dimensional computed tomography, J Oral MaxillofacSurg 70:648, 2012

Bockmann R, Scho¨n P, Neuking K, Meyns J, Kessler P, Eggeler G.In vitro comparison of the sagittal split osteotomy with and without inferior border osteotomy. J Oral MaxillofacSurg, 73, 316–23, 2015.

Muto T, Takahashi M, Akizuki K: Evaluation of the mandibular ramus fracture line after sagittal split ramus osteotomy using 3-dimensional computed tomography, J Oral MaxillofacSurg, 70:e648, 2012.

Kriwalsky MS, Maurer P, Veras RB, Eckert AW, Schubert J. Risk factors for a bad split during sagittal split osteotomy, Br J Oral MaxillofacSurg, 46, 177–179, 2008.

Hou M, Yu T, Wang J. Evaluation of the mandibular split patterns in sagittal split ramusosteotomy, J Oral MaxillofacSurg, 73, 985–93, 2015.

S.C. Mohlhenrich, N. Ayoub, F. Peters, P. Winterhalder, A. Prescher, F. Ho lzle, M.Wolf, A. Modabber, Evaluation of the lingual fracture patterns after bilateral sagittal split osteotomy according to Hunsuck/Epker modified by an additional inferior border osteotomy using a burr or ultrasonic device.

Wolford LM, DavisThe Mandibular Inferior Border Split: A Modification in the Sagittal Split Osteotomy, J Oral Maxillofac Surg, 1990.

Published

22-03-2022

How to Cite

Vignesh K. R, A., Sankar, D., Veerabahu, M., Paneerselvam, E., Ganesh, V., Belinda, J., Singh, S., & Bharathi, R. (2022). Evaluation of lingual fracture pattern of the mandible after bilateral sagittal split osteotomy with and without inferior border osteotomy. International Journal of Health Sciences, 6(S2), 43–62. https://doi.org/10.53730/ijhs.v6nS2.4964

Issue

Section

Peer Review Articles

Most read articles by the same author(s)