Journal of the Korean Association of Oral and Maxillofacial Surgeons

The Korean Association of Oral and Maxillofacial Surgeons (대한구강악안면외과학회)
권호 표지
DOI QR코드

DOI QR Code

Three-dimensional finite element analysis of the stress distribution and displacement in different fixation methods of bilateral sagittal split ramus osteotomy

  • Yun, Kyoung In (Department of Oral and Maxillofacial Surgery, St. Paul's Hospital, The Catholic University of Korea, College of Medicine) ;
  • Cho, Young-Gyu (Department of Oral and Maxillofacial Surgery, The Catholic University of Korea, College of Medicine) ;
  • Lee, Jong-Min (Department of Oral and Maxillofacial Surgery, Seoul St. Mary's Hospital, The Catholic University of Korea, College of Medicine) ;
  • Park, Yoon-Hee (Department of Oral and Maxillofacial Surgery, Uijeongbu St. Mary's Hospital, The Catholic University of Korea, College of Medicine) ;
  • Park, Myung-Kyun (Department of Mechanical Engineering, Myongji University) ;
  • Park, Je Uk (Department of Oral and Maxillofacial Surgery, Seoul St. Mary's Hospital, The Catholic University of Korea, College of Medicine)
  • Received : 2012.06.21
  • Accepted : 2012.07.27
  • Published : 2012.10.31
Download PDF
⟨ Previous Next ⟩

Abstract

Objectives: This study evaluated a range of fixation methods to determine which is best for the postoperative stabilization of a mandibular osteotomy using three-dimensional finite element analysis of the stress distribution on the plate, screw and surrounding bone and displacement of the lower incisors. Materials and Methods: The model was generated using the synthetic skull scan data, and the surface model was changed to a solid model using software. Bilateral sagittal split ramus osteotomy was performed using the program, and 8 different types of fixation methods were evaluated. A vertical load of 10 N was applied to the occlusal surface of the first molar. Results: In the case of bicortical screws, von-Mises stress on the screws and screw hole and deflection of the lower central incisor were minimal in type 2 (inverted L pattern with 3 bicortical repositioning screws). In the case of plates, von-Mises stress was minimal in type 8 (fixation 5 mm above the inferior border of the mandible with 1 metal plate and 4 monocortical screws), and deflection of the lower central incisor was minimal in types 6 (fixation 5 mm below the superior border of the mandible with 1 metal plate and 4 monocortical screws) and 7 (fixation 12 mm below the superior border of the mandible with 1 metal plate and 4 monocortical screws). Conclusion: Types 2 and 6 fixation methods provide better stability than the others.

Keywords

References

  1. Park JU. Orthognathic surgery. Seoul: Koonja Publishing; 2003: 267-316.
  2. Wolford LM. The sagittal split ramus osteotomy as the preferred treatment for mandibular prognathism. J Oral Maxillofac Surg 2000;58:310-2.
  3. Oguz Y, Uckan S, Ozden AU, Uckan E, Eser A. Stability of locking and conventional 2.0-mm miniplate/screw systems after sagittal split ramus osteotomy: finite element analysis. Oral Surg Oral Med Oral Pathol Oral Radiol Endod 2009;108:174-7.
  4. Ueki K, Hashiba Y, Marukawa K, Alam S, Nakagawa K, Yamamoto E. Skeletal stability after mandibular setback surgery: bicortical fixation using a 2.0-mm locking plate system versus monocortical fixation using a nonlocking plate system. J Oral Maxillofac Surg 2008;66:900-4.
  5. Brasileiro BF, Grempel RG, Ambrosano GM, Passeri LA. An in vitro evaluation of rigid internal fixation techniques for sagittal split ramus osteotomies: advancement surgery. J Oral Maxillofac Surg 2009;67:809-17.
  6. Jafari A, Shetty KS, Kumar M. Study of stress distribution and displacement of various craniofacial structures following application of transverse orthopedic forces--a three-dimensional FEM study. Angle Orthod 2003;73:12-20.
  7. Holberg C. Effects of rapid maxillary expansion on the cranial base--an FEM-analysis. J Orofac Orthop 2005;66:54-66.
  8. Proffit WR, Phillips C. Adaptations in lip posture and pressure following orthognathic surgery. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop 1988;93:294-302.
  9. Nagai I, Tanaka N, Noguchi M, Suda Y, Sonoda T, Kohama G. Changes in occlusal state of patients with mandibular prognathism after orthognathic surgery: a pilot study. Br J Oral Maxillofac Surg 2001;39:429-33.
  10. Jang HS, Kim YK. A clinical study on the relapse after bssro for the correction of mandibular prognathism. J Kor Oral Maxillofac Surg 1996;22:4-9.
  11. Erkmen E, Simsek B, Yucel E, Kurt A. Comparison of different fixation methods following sagittal split ramus osteotomies using three-dimensional finite elements analysis. Part 1: advancement surgery-posterior loading. Int J Oral Maxillofac Surg 2005;34:551-8.
  12. Yoon OB, Kim YG. A study of von-Mises yield strength after mandibular sagittal split ramus osteotomy. J Kor Oral Maxillofac Surg 2002;28:196-200.
  13. Lindorf HH. Sagittal ramus osteotomy with tandem screw fixation. Technique and results. J Maxillofac Surg 1986;14:311-6.
  14. Haug RH, Barber JE, Punjabi AP. An in vitro comparison of the effect of number and pattern of positional screws on load resistance. J Oral Maxillofac Surg 1999;57:300-8.
  15. Swift JQ. Mandibular advancement. Atlas Oral Maxillofac Surg Clin North Am 1993;1:17-27.
  16. Anucul B, Waite PD, Lemons JE. In vitro strength analysis of sagittal split osteotomy fixation: noncompression monocortical plates versus bicortical position screws. J Oral Maxillofac Surg 1992;50:1295-9.
  17. Chuong CJ, Borotikar B, Schwartz-Dabney C, Sinn DP. Mechanical characteristics of the mandible after bilateral sagittal split ramus osteotomy: comparing 2 different fixation techniques. J Oral Maxillofac Surg 2005;63:68-76.