3D simulation of interosseous interference in sagittal split ramus osteotomy for mandibular asymmetry.
Asymmetry
Computer assisted
Facial
Osteotomy
Sagittal split ramus
Three-dimensional imaging
Journal
Maxillofacial plastic and reconstructive surgery
ISSN: 2288-8101
Titre abrégé: Maxillofac Plast Reconstr Surg
Pays: England
ID NLM: 101633100
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
18 Sep 2023
18 Sep 2023
Historique:
received:
17
06
2023
accepted:
03
09
2023
medline:
18
9
2023
pubmed:
18
9
2023
entrez:
17
9
2023
Statut:
epublish
Résumé
The purpose of this study was to evaluate the pattern of predicted interosseous interference and to determine the influencing factor to volume of bony interference using a computer-assisted simulation system. This retrospective study recruited 116 patients with mandibular prognathism who had undergone sagittal split ramus osteotomy (SSRO) with or without maxillary osteotomy. The patients were divided into 3 groups according to the amount of menton (Me) deviation: less than 2 mm (Group 1), 2-4 mm (Group 2), and more than 4 mm (Group 3). Changes in the distal segments following BSSRO and the volume of the interosseous interference between the proximal and distal segments were simulated after matching preoperative occlusion and postoperative expected occlusion with the cone-beam computed tomography data. Ramal inclinations and other skeletal measurements were analyzed before surgery, immediately after surgery, and at least 6 months after surgery. The anticipated interosseous interference was more frequently noted on the contralateral side of chin deviation (long side) than the deviated site (short side) in Groups 2 and 3. More interference volume was predicted at the long side (186 ± 343.9 mm By using the 3D simulation system, the potential site of bony collision could be visualized and successfully reduced intraoperatively. Since the osseous interference can be existed on any side, unilaterally or bilaterally, 3D surgical simulation is necessary before surgery to predict the osseous interference and improve the ramal inclination.
Sections du résumé
BACKGROUND
BACKGROUND
The purpose of this study was to evaluate the pattern of predicted interosseous interference and to determine the influencing factor to volume of bony interference using a computer-assisted simulation system. This retrospective study recruited 116 patients with mandibular prognathism who had undergone sagittal split ramus osteotomy (SSRO) with or without maxillary osteotomy. The patients were divided into 3 groups according to the amount of menton (Me) deviation: less than 2 mm (Group 1), 2-4 mm (Group 2), and more than 4 mm (Group 3). Changes in the distal segments following BSSRO and the volume of the interosseous interference between the proximal and distal segments were simulated after matching preoperative occlusion and postoperative expected occlusion with the cone-beam computed tomography data. Ramal inclinations and other skeletal measurements were analyzed before surgery, immediately after surgery, and at least 6 months after surgery.
RESULTS
RESULTS
The anticipated interosseous interference was more frequently noted on the contralateral side of chin deviation (long side) than the deviated site (short side) in Groups 2 and 3. More interference volume was predicted at the long side (186 ± 343.9 mm
CONCLUSION
CONCLUSIONS
By using the 3D simulation system, the potential site of bony collision could be visualized and successfully reduced intraoperatively. Since the osseous interference can be existed on any side, unilaterally or bilaterally, 3D surgical simulation is necessary before surgery to predict the osseous interference and improve the ramal inclination.
Identifiants
pubmed: 37718330
doi: 10.1186/s40902-023-00400-x
pii: 10.1186/s40902-023-00400-x
pmc: PMC10505600
doi:
Types de publication
Journal Article
Langues
eng
Pagination
32Informations de copyright
© 2023. Korean Association of Maxillofacial Plastic and Reconstructive Surgeons.
Références
Maxillofac Plast Reconstr Surg. 2017 Dec 5;39(1):36
pubmed: 29230386
J Oral Maxillofac Surg. 2007 Feb;65(2):192-7
pubmed: 17236920
Br J Oral Maxillofac Surg. 2014 Mar;52(3):251-7
pubmed: 24418178
J Craniomaxillofac Surg. 2002 Feb;30(1):35-40
pubmed: 12064881
J Craniomaxillofac Surg. 2000 Oct;28(5):272-7
pubmed: 11467390
Plast Reconstr Surg Glob Open. 2015 Jan 08;2(12):e271
pubmed: 25587505
Angle Orthod. 2002 Feb;72(1):28-35
pubmed: 11843270
Br J Oral Maxillofac Surg. 2016 Apr;54(3):306-11
pubmed: 26874370
Oral Surg Oral Med Oral Pathol Oral Radiol Endod. 2010 Jul;110(1):18-24
pubmed: 20382051
J Oral Maxillofac Surg. 2014 Apr;72(4):779-87
pubmed: 24268965
Int J Oral Maxillofac Surg. 2020 Aug;49(8):1020-1028
pubmed: 31918988
J Oral Maxillofac Surg. 2011 Mar;69(3):645-54
pubmed: 20934795
PLoS One. 2016 Mar 22;11(3):e0152014
pubmed: 27002726
J Craniomaxillofac Surg. 2014 Jun;42(4):325-32
pubmed: 23816144
Int J Oral Maxillofac Surg. 2014 May;43(5):572-6
pubmed: 24332585
Int J Oral Maxillofac Surg. 2010 May;39(5):457-62
pubmed: 20226628
J Oral Maxillofac Surg. 2020 Aug;78(8):1389-1396
pubmed: 32304663
Int J Oral Maxillofac Surg. 2017 Aug;46(8):1052-1058
pubmed: 28302336
Oral Maxillofac Surg. 2011 Sep;15(3):131-8
pubmed: 20981462
Int J Oral Maxillofac Surg. 2021 Dec;50(12):1583-1587
pubmed: 33712317
J Oral Maxillofac Surg. 2007 Oct;65(10):2125-30
pubmed: 17884553
Int J Oral Maxillofac Surg. 2015 Dec;44(12):1431-40
pubmed: 26573562
J Oral Maxillofac Surg. 2013 Mar;71(3):597-609
pubmed: 23083507
Int J Oral Maxillofac Surg. 2015 Dec;44(12):1451-6
pubmed: 26573564