Journal of cranio-maxillo-facial surgery : official publication of the European Association for Cranio-Maxillo-Facial Surgery · 2022
Influence of different treatment procedures on the temporomandibular joint after mandibular setback in skeletal class III - A retrospective study.
СтатьяНазвание и аннотация: Перевод пока не подготовлен
Обработка статьи · этапы, ошибки и управление
Загрузка состояния…
Ошибки и ограничения
История · было → стало
Состояние обновляется каждые 5 секунд, пока блок открыт. Процент показывается только там, где известен объём работы. Пауза останавливает продолжение этапа; текущий запрос к источнику может завершиться.
Ohba Seigo, Tominaga Junya, Shido Rena, Koga Takamitsu, Yamamoto Hideyuki, Zaiima Hirotaka, Yoshida Noriaki, Asahina Izumi
Аннотация
The aim of this study was to clarify the effects of three different orthognathic surgical procedures on the temporomandibular joint after mandibular setback. Conventional sagittal split ramus osteotomy (SSRO) with segmental fixation (conv-SSRO), intraoral vertical ramus osteotomy (IVRO), or SSRO without fixation followed by the physiological positioning strategy (nonfix-SSRO) was performed for mandibular setback. Temporomandibular joint disorder (TMD) symptoms were clinically assessed, and the condylar head angle was measured. In total, 129 patients participated. Preoperative TMD and treatment procedure were related to postoperative TMD. A menton deviation of 3.43 mm was the cutoff for the risk of postoperative TMD. The incidence rate of postoperative TMD in the conv-SSRO group was higher than that in the IVRO (p = 0.0197) and nonfix-SSRO (p = 0.0001) groups in asymmetric cases. There was no significant postoperative change in the temporomandibular joint space in each group. In symmetric and asymmetric cases, the condylar head was rotated inwards by 5.82 ± 4.75° (p < 0.0001) and 5.44 ± 3.10° (p < 0.0001), respectively, in the conv-SSRO group, and outwards by -7.98 ± 5.05° (p < 0.0001) and -8.32 ± 6.38° (p < 0.0001), respectively, in the IVRO group, but it was almost stable in the nonfix-SSRO group. Within the limitations of the study it seems that nonfix-SSRO should be preferred over conv-SSRO and IVRO whenever appropriate.