Literature DB >> 35022847

Does the type of sagittal split ramus osteotomy influence fixation strength? Evaluation of the mechanical behavior of two types of fixation used in three types of sagittal split ramus osteotomy.

Soraya da Silva Oliveira1, Pedro Henrique Mattos de Carvalho1, Cássio Edvard Sverzut1, Alexandre Elias Trivellato2.   

Abstract

PURPOSE: This study compared the mechanical behavior of two fixation techniques used in three sections representing the sagittal split ramus osteotomy (SSRO) in polyurethane replicas that were divided into groups, according to type of section, and sub-groups according to type of fixation, simulating 11-mm advancement and 6º clockwise mandibular rotation.
METHODS: Loads were applied in two regions, aiming at progressive application and consequent strength value, measured in kilogram-force in displacements of 1, 3, 5, and 7 mm, from the load application tip. Shapiro-Wilk test was performed, followed by two-way analysis of variance (ANOVA-2 way), and Bonferroni's multiple comparison.
RESULTS: The results showed no statistically significant difference in the type of section and type of fixation used when load was applied to the inter-incisor region. However, when load was applied to the first molar region, statistically significant difference was observed in 1-mm displacement, in which section described by Epker with two modifications showed greater strength, regardless of type of fixation used (p = 0.007).
CONCLUSION: In the application of load in the inter-incisor region, there was no statistical difference between the type of osteotomy and the type of fixation used. When applying loads to molars, there was a difference for the type of osteotomy, where the Epker osteotomy with 2 modifications presented greater resistance, regardless of the type of fixation used.
© 2022. The Author(s), under exclusive licence to Springer-Verlag GmbH Germany, part of Springer Nature.

Entities:  

Keywords:  In vitro technique; Polyurethanes; Rigid internal fixation; Sagittal split ramus osteotomy

Year:  2022        PMID: 35022847     DOI: 10.1007/s10006-022-01038-1

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Oral Maxillofac Surg        ISSN: 1865-1550


  11 in total

1.  In vitro strength analysis of sagittal split osteotomy fixation: noncompression monocortical plates versus bicortical position screws.

Authors:  B Anucul; P D Waite; J E Lemons
Journal:  J Oral Maxillofac Surg       Date:  1992-12       Impact factor: 1.895

2.  In vitro biomechanical evaluation of sagittal split osteotomy fixation with a specifically designed miniplate.

Authors:  V A Pereira Filho; H Y Iamashita; M S Monnazzi; M F R Gabrielli; L G Vaz; L A Passeri
Journal:  Int J Oral Maxillofac Surg       Date:  2012-08-13       Impact factor: 2.789

3.  Which type of method shows the best mechanical behavior for internal fixation of bilateral sagittal split osteotomy in major advancements with clockwise rotation? Comparison of four methods.

Authors:  Pedro Henrique Mattos de Carvalho; Soraya da Silva Oliveira; Matheus Favaro; Cássio Edvard Sverzut; Alexandre Elias Trivellato
Journal:  Oral Maxillofac Surg       Date:  2020-07-13

4.  Fracture patterns after bilateral sagittal split osteotomy of the mandibular ramus according to the Obwegeser/Dal Pont and Hunsuck/Epker modifications.

Authors:  Stephan Christian Möhlhenrich; Kristian Kniha; Florian Peters; Nassim Ayoub; Evgeny Goloborodko; Frank Hölzle; Ulrike Fritz; Ali Modabber
Journal:  J Craniomaxillofac Surg       Date:  2017-02-20       Impact factor: 2.078

5.  A modified intraoral sagittal splitting technic for correction of mandibular prognathism.

Authors:  E E Hunsuck
Journal:  J Oral Surg       Date:  1968-04

6.  Comparative study of biomechanical stability of resorbable and titanium fixation systems after sagittal split ramus osteotomy with a novel designed in-vitro testing unit.

Authors:  Murat Ulu; Emrah Soylu; Seyfi Kelebek; Serkan Dikici; Hakan Oflaz
Journal:  J Craniomaxillofac Surg       Date:  2017-12-13       Impact factor: 2.078

7.  Internal screw fixation: comparison of placement pattern and rigidity.

Authors:  W L Foley; D E Frost; W B Paulin; M R Tucker
Journal:  J Oral Maxillofac Surg       Date:  1989-07       Impact factor: 1.895

8.  A biomechanical evaluation of bilateral sagittal ramus osteotomy fixation techniques.

Authors:  Gilman P Peterson; Richard H Haug; Joseph Van Sickels
Journal:  J Oral Maxillofac Surg       Date:  2005-09       Impact factor: 1.895

9.  Autogenous bone with or without hydroxyapatite bone substitute augmentation in rat calvarium within a plastic cap.

Authors:  Tsuyoshi Oginuma; Shuichi Sato; Asami Udagawa; Yuka Saito; Yoshinori Arai; Koichi Ito
Journal:  Oral Surg Oral Med Oral Pathol Oral Radiol       Date:  2012-02-25

10.  Mechanical evaluation of six techniques for stable fixation of the sagittal split osteotomy after counterclockwise mandibular advancement.

Authors:  Leandro Benetti De Oliveira; Jose Mauricio Nunes Reis; Rubens Spin-Neto; Marisa Aparecida Cabrini Gabrielli; Yener Oguz; Valfrido Antonio Pereira-Filho
Journal:  Br J Oral Maxillofac Surg       Date:  2016-04-07       Impact factor: 1.651

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.