Maxillofacial Plastic and Reconstructive Surgery

  • 제34권2호
  • /
  • Pages.100-105
  • /
  • 2012
  • /
  • 2288-8101(pISSN)
  • /
  • 2288-8586(eISSN)
대한악안면성형재건외과학회 (Korean Association of Maxillofacial Plastic and Reconstructive Surgeons)
권호 표지

하악후퇴증 환자에서 골신장술과 하악지 시상분할 골절단술의 술 후 안정성에 관한 비교 연구

Comparison of Postoperative Stability between Distraction Osteogenesis and Bilateral Sagittal Split Ramus Osteotomy in Mandibular Retrognathism

  • 유명수 (서울대학교 치의학대학원 구강악안면외과학교실) ;
  • 이지호 (울산대학교 의과대학 서울아산병원 구강악안면외과학교실) ;
  • 김명진 (서울대학교 치의학대학원 구강악안면외과학교실)
  • You, Myung-Su (Department of Oral and Maxillofacial Surgery, School of Dentistry, Seoul National University) ;
  • Lee, Jee-Ho (Department of Oral and Maxillofacial Surgery, Seoul Asan Hospital, College of Medicine, University of Ulsan) ;
  • Kim, Myung-Jin (Department of Oral and Maxillofacial Surgery, School of Dentistry, Seoul National University)
  • 투고 : 2011.10.25
  • 심사 : 2012.03.26
  • 발행 : 2012.03.30
PDF 다운로드
⟨ 이전 논문 다음 논문 ⟩

초록

Purpose: In general, the surgical treatment for mandibular retrognathism is represented by two methods, distraction osteogenesis (DO) and mandibular osteotomy surgery. The DO is mostly preferred when the degree of advancement of mandible is large. However, the postoperative stability of mandibular advancement using DO have not been actively investigated. Therefore, in the present study we have compared the postoperative stability between DO and bilateral sagittal split ramus osteotomy (BSSRO) in mandibular retrognathism. Methods: Seven patients who had been treated by DO and thirteen patients with BSSRO were included in this study. Serial lateral cephalograms were analyzed by manual tracing and the amount of the mandibular elongation was measured. To evaluate the postoperative stability, positional changes of the condylar position and B point were analyzed. Results: Mean amount of mandibular advancement was $6.51{\pm}3.57mm$ for BSSRO group and $12.43{\pm}4.35mm$ for DO group, respectively. There was no significant difference in age between the two groups (P>0.05). Mean follow up periods were 10.77 months for BSSRO group and 11.28 months for DO group, respectively. After mandibular advancement, mean positional changes in the condyle were $0.56{\pm}1.43mm$ horizontally and $0.72{\pm}1.61mm$ vertically for BSSRO group and $0.53{\pm}1.56mm$ horizontally and $0.56{\pm}1.75mm$ vertically for DO group, respectively. Mean change of distance from B point to Y-axis was $-1.76{\pm}0.83mm$ for BSSRO group and $-2.14{\pm}1.82mm$ for DO group, respectively. According to the condylar position and B point, there were no significant differences in postoperative stability between the two groups (P>0.05). Conclusion: There was no significant difference in postoperative stability between DO and BSSRO group according to condylar position and B point. Based on the results of the present study, it is hypothesized that DO would be a good treatment choice for severe mandibular retrognathism because DO could achieve more mandibular advancement and concurrent soft tissue elongation.

키워드

참고문헌

  1. Walker DA. Management of severe mandibular retrognathia in the adult patient using distraction osteogenesis. J Oral Maxillofac Surg 2002;60:1341-6. https://doi.org/10.1053/joms.2002.35735
  2. Ow A, Cheung LK. Skeletal stability and complications of bilateral sagittal split osteotomies and mandibular distraction osteogenesis: an evidence-based review. J Oral Maxillofac Surg 2009;67:2344-53. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.joms.2008.07.003
  3. Schreuder WH, Jansma J, Bierman MW, Vissink A. Distraction osteogenesis versus bilateral sagittal split osteotomy for advancement of the retrognathic mandible: a review of the literature. Int J Oral Maxillofac Surg 2007;36:103-10. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijom.2006.12.002
  4. Huang CS, Ross RB. Surgical advancement of the retrognathic mandible in growing children. Am J Orthod 1982; 82:89-103. https://doi.org/10.1016/0002-9416(82)90488-2
  5. Eggensperger N, Smolka W, Rahal A, Iizuka T. Skeletal relapse after mandibular advancement and setback in single- jaw surgery. J Oral Maxillofac Surg 2004;62:1486-96. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.joms.2004.07.007
  6. Moore KE, Gooris PJ, Stoelinga PJ. The contributing role of condylar resorption to skeletal relapse following mandibular advancement surgery: report of five cases. J Oral Maxillofac Surg 1991;49:448-60. https://doi.org/10.1016/0278-2391(91)90166-J
  7. Cutbirth M, Van Sickels JE, Thrash WJ. Condylar resorption after bicortical screw fixation of mandibular advancement. J Oral Maxillofac Surg 1998;56:178-82. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0278-2391(98)90863-1
  8. van Strijen PJ, Breuning KH, Becking AG, Tuinzing DB. Stability after distraction osteogenesis to lengthen the mandible: results in 50 patients. J Oral Maxillofac Surg 2004;62: 304-7. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.joms.2003.02.003
  9. McTavish J, Marucci DD, Bonar SF, Walsh WR, Poole MD. Does the sheep mandible relapse following lengthening by distraction osteogenesis? J Craniomaxillofac Surg 2000;28:251-7. https://doi.org/10.1054/jcms.2000.0153
  10. Whitesides LM, Meyer RA. Effect of distraction osteogenesis on the severely hypoplastic mandible and inferior alveolar nerve function. J Oral Maxillofac Surg 2004;62:292-7. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.joms.2003.06.008
  11. Epker BN, Wessberg GA. Mechanisms of early skeletal release following surgical advancement of the mandible. Br J Oral Surg 1982;20:175-82. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0007-117X(82)80035-8
  12. Tucker MR. Management of severe mandibular retrognathia in the adult patient using traditional orthognathic surgery. J Oral Maxillofac Surg 2002;60:1334-40. https://doi.org/10.1053/joms.2002.35734
  13. Vos MD, Baas EM, de Lange J, Bierenbroodspot F. Stability of mandibular advancement procedures: bilateral sagittal split osteotomy versus distraction osteogenesis. Int J Oral Maxillofac Surg 2009;38:7-12. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijom.2008.09.007
  14. Thygesen TH, Bardow A, Helleberg M, Norholt SE, Jensen J, Svensson P. Risk factors affecting somatosensory function after sagittal split osteotomy. J Oral Maxillofac Surg 2008;66: 469-74. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.joms.2007.06.666
  15. Eggensperger N, Smolka K, Luder J, Iizuka T. Short- and long-term skeletal relapse after mandibular advancement surgery. Int J Oral Maxillofac Surg 2006;35:36-42. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijom.2005.04.008