Journal of cranio-maxillo-facial surgery : official publication of the European Association for Cranio-Maxillo-Facial Surgery · 2013
Comparison of postoperative stability of three rigid internal fixation techniques after sagittal split ramus osteotomy for mandibular advancement.
Сравнительное исследованиеСтатьяПоддержка исследования: вне правительства СШАНазвание 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.
Sato Fábio Ricardo Loureiro, Asprino Luciana, Fernandes Moreira Roger William, de Moraes Márcio
Аннотация
INTRODUCTION: The aim of this investigation was to compare the skeletal stability of three different rigid fixation methods after mandibular advancement.
MATERIAL AND METHODS: Fifty-five class II malocclusion patients treated with the use of bilateral sagittal split ramus osteotomy and mandibular advancement were selected for this retrospective study. Group 1 (n = 17) had miniplates with monocortical screws, Group 2 (n = 16) had bicortical screws and Group 3 (n = 22) had the osteotomy fixed by means of the hybrid technique. Cephalograms were taken preoperatively, 1 week within the postoperative care period, and 6 months after the orthognathic surgery. Linear and angular changes of the cephalometric landmarks of the chin region were measured at each period, and the changes at each cephalometric landmark were determined for the time gaps. Postoperative changes in the mandibular shape were analyzed to determine the stability of fixation methods.
RESULTS: There was minimum difference in the relapse of the mandibular advancement among the three groups. Statistical analysis showed no significant difference in postoperative stability. However, a positive correlation between the amount of advancement and the amount of postoperative relapse was demonstrated by the linear multiple regression test (p < 0.05).
CONCLUSION: It can be concluded that all techniques can be used to obtain stable postoperative results in mandibular advancement after 6 months.
MATERIAL AND METHODS: Fifty-five class II malocclusion patients treated with the use of bilateral sagittal split ramus osteotomy and mandibular advancement were selected for this retrospective study. Group 1 (n = 17) had miniplates with monocortical screws, Group 2 (n = 16) had bicortical screws and Group 3 (n = 22) had the osteotomy fixed by means of the hybrid technique. Cephalograms were taken preoperatively, 1 week within the postoperative care period, and 6 months after the orthognathic surgery. Linear and angular changes of the cephalometric landmarks of the chin region were measured at each period, and the changes at each cephalometric landmark were determined for the time gaps. Postoperative changes in the mandibular shape were analyzed to determine the stability of fixation methods.
RESULTS: There was minimum difference in the relapse of the mandibular advancement among the three groups. Statistical analysis showed no significant difference in postoperative stability. However, a positive correlation between the amount of advancement and the amount of postoperative relapse was demonstrated by the linear multiple regression test (p < 0.05).
CONCLUSION: It can be concluded that all techniques can be used to obtain stable postoperative results in mandibular advancement after 6 months.