David H. Perrott DDS, MD (Associate Professor) , Yu Feng Lu DDS (Research Fellow) , M.Anthony Pogrel MB, ChB, BDS, FDSRCS, FRCS (Associate Professor and Chairman) , Leonard B. Kaban DMD, MD (Walter C. Guralnick Professor and Chair, Chief)
{"title":"Stability of sagittal split osteotomies","authors":"David H. Perrott DDS, MD (Associate Professor) , Yu Feng Lu DDS (Research Fellow) , M.Anthony Pogrel MB, ChB, BDS, FDSRCS, FRCS (Associate Professor and Chairman) , Leonard B. Kaban DMD, MD (Walter C. Guralnick Professor and Chair, Chief)","doi":"10.1016/0030-4220(94)90083-3","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<div><p>The objective of this study was to retrospectively evaluate stability of mandibular advancement after bilateral sagittal split osteotomies were performed. Three different fixation and immobilization protocols were examined. Thirty-three patients were evaluated with preoperative, immediate postoperative, and long-term (mean, 13 months) lateral cephalometric radiographs. The patients were divided into three groups: group 1 (<em>n</em> = 10) had nonrigid internal fixation and 6 weeks of maxillomandibular fixation, group 2 (<em>n</em> = 12) had rigid internal fixation and immediate postoperative function, and group 3 (<em>n</em> = 11) had rigid internal fixation with maxillomandibular fixation for a mean of 14 days. Group 3 had the least amount of sagittal and vertical relapse. Differences in sagittal relapse were statistically significant between groups 1 and 3. Group 2 demonstrated greater sagittal relapse than did group 3, although the result was not statistically significant. This study suggests that the use of rigid internal fixation with a period of maxillomandibular fixation appears to be more stable than nonrigid internal fixation with maxillomandibular fixation or rigid internal fixation without maxillomandibular fixation.</p></div>","PeriodicalId":100992,"journal":{"name":"Oral Surgery, Oral Medicine, Oral Pathology","volume":"78 6","pages":"Pages 696-704"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"1994-12-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.1016/0030-4220(94)90083-3","citationCount":"37","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Oral Surgery, Oral Medicine, Oral Pathology","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/0030422094900833","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 37
Abstract
The objective of this study was to retrospectively evaluate stability of mandibular advancement after bilateral sagittal split osteotomies were performed. Three different fixation and immobilization protocols were examined. Thirty-three patients were evaluated with preoperative, immediate postoperative, and long-term (mean, 13 months) lateral cephalometric radiographs. The patients were divided into three groups: group 1 (n = 10) had nonrigid internal fixation and 6 weeks of maxillomandibular fixation, group 2 (n = 12) had rigid internal fixation and immediate postoperative function, and group 3 (n = 11) had rigid internal fixation with maxillomandibular fixation for a mean of 14 days. Group 3 had the least amount of sagittal and vertical relapse. Differences in sagittal relapse were statistically significant between groups 1 and 3. Group 2 demonstrated greater sagittal relapse than did group 3, although the result was not statistically significant. This study suggests that the use of rigid internal fixation with a period of maxillomandibular fixation appears to be more stable than nonrigid internal fixation with maxillomandibular fixation or rigid internal fixation without maxillomandibular fixation.