• The korean journal of orthodontics
• /
• v.46 no.6
• /
• pp.395-408
• /
• 2016

We report a case involving a young female patient with severe mandibular retrognathism accompanied by mandibular condylar deformity that was effectively treated with Le Fort I osteotomy and two genioplasty procedures. At 9 years and 9 months of age, she was diagnosed with Angle Class III malocclusion, a skeletal Class II jaw relationship, an anterior crossbite, congenital absence of some teeth, and a left-sided cleft lip and palate. Although the anterior crossbite and narrow maxillary arch were corrected by interceptive orthodontic treatment, severe mandibular hypogrowth resulted in unexpectedly severe mandibular retrognathism after growth completion. Moreover, bilateral condylar deformities were observed, and we suspected progressive condylar resorption (PCR). There was a high risk of further condylar resorption with mandibular advancement surgery; therefore, Le Fort I osteotomy with two genioplasty procedures was performed to achieve counterclockwise rotation of the mandible and avoid ingravescence of the condylar deformities. The total duration of active treatment was 42 months. The maxilla was impacted by 7.0 mm and 5.0 mm in the incisor and molar regions, respectively, while the pogonion was advanced by 18.0 mm. This significantly resolved both skeletal disharmony and malocclusion. Furthermore, the hyoid bone was advanced, the pharyngeal airway space was increased, and the morphology of the mandibular condyle was maintained. At the 30-month follow-up examination, the patient exhibited a satisfactory facial profile. The findings from our case suggest that severe mandibular retrognathism with condylar deformities can be effectively treated without surgical mandibular advancement, thus decreasing the risk of PCR.

• Maxillofacial Plastic and Reconstructive Surgery
• /
• v.34 no.2
• /
• pp.100-105
• /
• 2012

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.

• Maxillofacial Plastic and Reconstructive Surgery
• /
• v.28 no.1
• /
• pp.73-79
• /
• 2006

The management of mandibular prognathism and retrognathism was revoluted by the advent of the technique of bilateral sagittal split ramus osteotomy(BSSRO) as described by Obwegeser and Trauner in 1957. The BSSRO of the mandible has been used for nearly 50 years and has undergone numerous modifications and improvements. Most patients, treated by this surgical operation, express their satisfaction with improved facial esthetics, masticatory function and others. But several complications associated with BSSRO may appear. Especially among them, facial nerve palsy following BSSRO is rare but serious problem. We treated for facial nerve palsy following BSSRO by physical therapy, steroid therapy and surgical intervention and then the result was favorable. Therefore we would like to report a case about a patient with facial nerve palsy after BSSRO with a review of the literatures.

• Maxillofacial Plastic and Reconstructive Surgery
• /
• v.29 no.3
• /
• pp.217-226
• /
• 2007

Purpose: Distraction osteogenesis is considered to take favorable effect on the TMJ and be beneficial to prevent the relapse after the mandibular advancement of Class II malocclusion patient. This is the report with literature review on the mandibular advancement in the patients showing preoperative condylar resorption and who need larger amount of advancement. Patients and method: Distraction osteogenesis using intraoral device was performed for three mandibular hypoplasia patients (one male and two females). All patients were adult over 18 years old. The patients showed condylar bony resorption preoperatively. The distraction was performed intraorally with modified SSRO. After 7 days of latency period, activation was performed at the rate of 1.0 mm/day with twice turn. The devices were removed after 4-8 month consolidation period. Results: Total advancement of mandible was average 13 mm. One patient showed openbite immediately after removal of distraction device. It took long time to guide the openbite with elastics. The comparison between cephalometries immediately after device removal and postoperative six month revealed average 3.4 mm relapse. This means that mandibular advancement with distraction osteogenesis needs overcorrection and elastic rehabilitation even after enough consolidation periods. Conclusion: Larger amount of mandibular advancement could be achieved with distraction osteogenesis in severe mandibular hypoplasia with condylar resorption. However, some relapse was found during the follow-up period and the over correction is considered to be needed. The effect of distraction osteogenesis seems to be investigated with long-term follow-up.