Sagittal Split Ramus Osteotomy in the Shortest Buccal Bone Marrow Distances of the Mandible on the Coronal Plane.
Journal
BioMed research international
ISSN: 2314-6141
Titre abrégé: Biomed Res Int
Pays: United States
ID NLM: 101600173
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
2021
2021
Historique:
received:
23
01
2021
revised:
02
03
2021
accepted:
08
03
2021
entrez:
1
4
2021
pubmed:
2
4
2021
medline:
26
5
2021
Statut:
epublish
Résumé
This study investigated the relationship between the shortest buccal bone marrow of the ramus and skeletal patterns. Using cone-beam computed tomography data (specifically, the A point-nasion-B point (ANB) angle), we divided patients into three groups as follows: skeletal class I (0° < ANB < 4°), class II (ANB: ≥4°), and class III (ANB: ≤0°). Sixteen vertical sections in the coronal plane were taken starting from slice 0 (original intact mandibular canal) anteriorly at 2 mm intervals to slice 15 (30 mm). The thickness of the mandible (M) and shortest buccal bone marrow (SBM) were measured. The data of SBM were divided into two groups (SBM ≥ 1 mm and SBM < 1 mm). For each skeletal pattern, an SBM value < 1 mm was considered to indicate a high possibility of postoperative nerve paresthesia and bad split. The three skeletal pattern groups also did not significantly differ in their M values for all sections. The mean SBM values of class III (0.91-2.11 mm) at 6-16 mm anterior to the mandibular foramen were significantly smaller than those of class II (1.53-3.17 mm). Comparing the occurrence ratio of SBM < 1 mm, the highest and lowest probabilities in class III (55% and 21.7%, respectively) were significantly larger at 6-20 mm anterior to the mandibular foramen than those in class II (28.3% and 5%, respectively). Class III had a significantly shorter SBM distance and higher SBM occurrence probability than class II at the mandibular ramus region, implying that class III participants are more likely than class II participants to have nerve paresthesia and bad split after sagittal split ramus osteotomy.
Identifiants
pubmed: 33791365
doi: 10.1155/2021/5586498
pmc: PMC7997755
doi:
Types de publication
Journal Article
Langues
eng
Sous-ensembles de citation
IM
Pagination
5586498Informations de copyright
Copyright © 2021 Chun-Ming Chen et al.
Déclaration de conflit d'intérêts
The authors declare that they have no conflicts of interest.
Références
Biomed Res Int. 2018 Jun 6;2018:8143962
pubmed: 29984249
Br J Oral Maxillofac Surg. 2019 Apr;57(3):260-264
pubmed: 30910414
J Oral Maxillofac Surg. 2018 Jul;76(7):1539-1545
pubmed: 29406261
Br J Oral Maxillofac Surg. 2016 May;54(4):366-71
pubmed: 26922403
J Craniofac Surg. 2017 Jul;28(5):1375-1379
pubmed: 28489659
Br J Oral Maxillofac Surg. 2020 Oct;58(8):975-980
pubmed: 32624266
Oral Surg Oral Med Oral Pathol Oral Radiol. 2012 Apr;113(4):453-8
pubmed: 22676925
Int J Oral Maxillofac Surg. 2005 May;34(3):243-6
pubmed: 15741030
J Oral Maxillofac Surg. 2019 Feb;77(2):380-390
pubmed: 30055164
Int J Oral Maxillofac Surg. 2019 May;48(5):620-628
pubmed: 30579742
Br J Oral Maxillofac Surg. 2014 Mar;52(3):219-22
pubmed: 24388635
J Oral Maxillofac Surg. 2000 Mar;58(3):310-2
pubmed: 10716114
Int J Oral Maxillofac Surg. 2013 Jul;42(7):823-9
pubmed: 23639585
AJNR Am J Neuroradiol. 1996 Mar;17(3):579-84
pubmed: 8881258
Plast Reconstr Surg. 2003 Jun;111(7):2140-6; discussion 2147-8
pubmed: 12794453
Int J Oral Maxillofac Surg. 2016 Jul;45(7):887-97
pubmed: 26936377
Atlas Oral Maxillofac Surg Clin North Am. 2016 Mar;24(1):27-36
pubmed: 26847510
J Oral Maxillofac Surg. 2012 Feb;70(2):401-6
pubmed: 21549489
Int J Oral Maxillofac Surg. 2016 Aug;45(8):971-9
pubmed: 26980136
J Oral Maxillofac Surg. 2009 Nov;67(11):2452-4
pubmed: 19837316
J Formos Med Assoc. 2016 Nov;115(11):981-990
pubmed: 26723862
J Oral Maxillofac Surg. 2010 Aug;68(8):1795-801
pubmed: 20044190
J Craniomaxillofac Surg. 2019 Dec;47(12):1855-1860
pubmed: 31813754
J Oral Maxillofac Surg. 2013 Dec;71(12):2153.e1-10
pubmed: 24135253
J Oral Maxillofac Surg. 2002 May;60(5):490-5
pubmed: 11988921