Maxillofacial Plastic and Reconstructive Surgery

Korean Association of Maxillofacial Plastic and Reconstructive Surgeons (대한악안면성형재건외과학회)
권호 표지

Prediction of Amount of Mandibular Set Back with 3 Plain Radiographs in Mandibular Sagittal Split Ramus Osteotomy

하악상행지 시상분할골절단술 시 하악후퇴량의 방사선학적 예측

  • Noh, Lyang-Seok (Department of Oral and Maxillofacial surgery, School of Dentistry, Kyungpook National University) ;
  • Kim, Jin-Wook (Department of Oral and Maxillofacial surgery, School of Dentistry, Kyungpook National University) ;
  • Kwon, Tae-Geon (Department of Oral and Maxillofacial surgery, School of Dentistry, Kyungpook National University) ;
  • Lee, Sang-Han (Department of Oral and Maxillofacial surgery, School of Dentistry, Kyungpook National University)
  • 노량석 (경북대학교 치의학전문대학원 구강악안면외과학교실) ;
  • 김진욱 (경북대학교 치의학전문대학원 구강악안면외과학교실) ;
  • 권대근 (경북대학교 치의학전문대학원 구강악안면외과학교실) ;
  • 이상한 (경북대학교 치의학전문대학원 구강악안면외과학교실)
  • Received : 2011.03.29
  • Accepted : 2011.06.22
  • Published : 2011.07.31
Download PDF
⟨ Previous Next ⟩

Abstract

Purpose: The present study examined the reproducibility of an operation plan by comparing the jaw position of STO with the postoperative mandibular set back measurement in sagittal split ramus osteotomy. Methods: Thirty patients with class III dental and skeletal malocclusion and who were treated with BSSRO were reviewed. Three plain radiographs such as the panoramic view, the lateral cephalogram and the submentovertex view were taken before and after operation. Also, paper surgery for STO and model surgery were used to evaluate the amount of mandibular set back. Results: On the panoramic view, the amount of mandibular set back in STO was similar to the postoperative results of model surgery, but the amount of mandibular set back on the lateral cephalogram was smaller than the postoperative result of model surgery and then the amount of set back on submentovertex view was similar to the postoperative result of model surgery. Conclusion: Precise tracing and paper surgery should be performed for a combined expected STO in order to predict the exact amount of preoperative mandibular set back.

Keywords

References

  1. Wackens G. The psychological implications of orthognathic surgery. Rev Belge Med Dent 2002;57:32-6.
  2. William R, Raymond P. Surgical-orthodontic treatment. 1st ed. Chapel Hill: Mosby; 1990. p.266.
  3. Kwon TG, Lee SH, Kim JB, Nam KY. A rediction of bony interference between proximal & distal segment of the mandible with integrated 3D solid model and dental cast in orthognathic surgery. J Korean Oral Maxillofacial Surg 2003;29: 163-8.
  4. Kwon SW, Jee YJ, Lee BS, Lee DW. The evaluation of reproducibility of operation plan with the comparison between STO and post-operative jaw position in orthognathic surgery. J Korean Oral Maxillofacial Surg 2008;34:628-34.
  5. Omura T, Glickman RS, Super S. Method to verify the accuracy of model surgery and prediction tracing. Int J Adult Orthodon Orthognath Surg 1996;11:265-70.
  6. Donatsky O, Hillerup S, Bjorn-Jorgensen J, Jacobsen PU. Computerized cephalometric orthognathic surgical simulation and postoperative evaluation of precision. Int J Oral Maxillo fac Surg 1992;21:199-203. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0901-5027(05)80218-8
  7. Sperry TP, Steinberg MJ, Gans BJ. Mandibular movement during autorotation as a result of maxillary impaction surgery. Am J Orthod 1982;81:116-23. https://doi.org/10.1016/0002-9416(82)90035-5
  8. Tronje G. Image distortion in rotational panoramic radiography: V. Object morphology; inner structures. Acta Radiol Diagn (Stockh) 1982;23:59-62. https://doi.org/10.1177/028418518202300109
  9. McDavid WD, Tronje G, Welander U, Morris CR, Nummikoski P. Imaging characteristics of seven panoramic${\times}$-ray units. Chapter 4. Horizontal and vertical magnification. Dentomaxillofac Radiol 1985;Suppl 8:29-34.
  10. Larheim TA, Svanaes DB, Johannessen S. Reproducibility of radiographs with the orthopantomograph 5: tooth-length assessment. Oral Surg Oral Med Oral Pathol 1984;58:736-41. https://doi.org/10.1016/0030-4220(84)90045-8
  11. Manson-Hing LR, Lund TM. A study of the focal troughs of three panoramic dental ${\times}$-ray machines. Part II. Image dimensions. Oral Surg Oral Med Oral Pathol 1975;39:647-53. https://doi.org/10.1016/0030-4220(75)90209-1
  12. Brueggemann IA. Evaluation of the Panorex unit. Oral Surg Oral Med Oral Pathol 1967;24:348-58. https://doi.org/10.1016/0030-4220(67)90041-2
  13. Forsberg CT, Burstone CJ, Hanley KJ. Diagnosis and treatment planning of skeletal asymmetry with the submentalvertical radigraph. Am J Orthod 1983;85:224-37.
  14. Lew KK, Tay DK. Submentovertex cephalometric norms in male Chinese subjects. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop 1993;103:247-52. https://doi.org/10.1016/0889-5406(93)70005-9
  15. Arnold TG, Anderson GC, Liljemark WF. Cephalometric norms for craniofacial asymmetry using submental-vertical radiograghs. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop 1994;106:250-6. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0889-5406(94)70044-3