Literature DB >> 11078132

Skeletal stability after mandibular advancement with rigid versus wire fixation.

C Dolce1, J E Van Sickels, R A Bays, J D Rugh.   

Abstract

PURPOSE: This study examined the stability of skeletal changes after mandibular advancement surgery with rigid or wire fixation up to 2 years postoperatively. PATIENTS AND METHODS: Subjects for this multisite, prospective, clinical trial received rigid (n = 78) or wire (n = 49) fixation. The rigid cases were fixed with three 2-mm bicortical position screws and 1 to 2 weeks of skeletal maxillomandibular fixation with elastics, and the wire fixation subjects were fixed with inferior border wires and had 6 weeks of skeletal maxillomandibular fixation with 24-gauge wires. Cephalometric radiographs were obtained before orthodontics, immediately before surgery, and at 1 week, 8 weeks, 6 months, 1 year, and 2 years after surgery. Linear cephalometric changes were referenced to a cranial base coordinate system.
RESULTS: Before surgery, both groups were balanced with respect to linear and angular measurements of craniofacial morphology. Mean anterior sagittal advancement of the mandibular symphysis was 4.92 +/3.01 mm in the rigid group and 5.11 +/- 3.09 mm in the wire group, and the inferior vertical displacement was 3.37 +/- 2.44 in the rigid group and 2.85 +/- 1.78 in the wire group. The vertical changes were similar in both groups. Two years postsurgery, the wire group had 30% sagittal relapse of the mandibular symphysis, whereas there was no change in the rigid group (P < .001). Both groups experienced changes in the orientation and configuration of the mandible.
CONCLUSIONS: Rigid fixation is a more stable method than wire fixation for maintaining mandibular advancement after sagittal split ramus osteotomy.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2000        PMID: 11078132     DOI: 10.1053/joms.2000.16617

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  J Oral Maxillofac Surg        ISSN: 0278-2391            Impact factor:   1.895


  6 in total

1.  Three lateral osteotomy designs for bilateral sagittal split osteotomy: biomechanical evaluation with three-dimensional finite element analysis.

Authors:  Hiromasa Takahashi; Shigeaki Moriyama; Haruhiko Furuta; Hisao Matsunaga; Yuki Sakamoto; Toshihiro Kikuta
Journal:  Head Face Med       Date:  2010-03-26       Impact factor: 2.151

2.  Skeletal stability of patients undergoing maxillomandibular advancement for treatment of obstructive sleep apnea.

Authors:  Sang Hwa Lee; Leonard B Kaban; Edward T Lahey
Journal:  J Oral Maxillofac Surg       Date:  2014-10-29       Impact factor: 1.895

3.  Dentoskeletal effects of functional appliances vs bimaxillary surgery in hyperdivergent Class II patients.

Authors:  Adebimpe O Ibitayo; Valmy Pangrazio-Kulbersh; Jeff Berger; Burcu Bayirli
Journal:  Angle Orthod       Date:  2011-03       Impact factor: 2.079

4.  Comparison of postoperative changes in the distal and proximal segments between conventional and sliding mini-plate fixation following mandibular setback.

Authors:  Seong-Sik Kim; Kyoung-Ho Kwak; Ching-Chang Ko; Soo-Byung Park; Woo-Sung Son; Yong-Il Kim
Journal:  Korean J Orthod       Date:  2016-11-14       Impact factor: 1.372

5.  Transverse Changes in Mandible Following Bilateral Sagittal Split Ramus Osteotomy Advancement.

Authors:  Tushar Deshmukh; N K Sahoo
Journal:  J Maxillofac Oral Surg       Date:  2018-10-09

Review 6.  TMJ response to mandibular advancement surgery: an overview of risk factors.

Authors:  José Valladares-Neto; Lucia Helena Cevidanes; Wesley Cabral Rocha; Guilherme de Araújo Almeida; João Batista de Paiva; José Rino-Neto
Journal:  J Appl Oral Sci       Date:  2014 Jan-Feb       Impact factor: 2.698

  6 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.