Maxillofacial Plastic and Reconstructive Surgery

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

THE CORRECTION OF CLASS III MANDIBULAR ASYMMETRY USING BILATERAL SAGITTAL SPLIT RAMUS OSTEOTOMY AND LATERAL ANGLE REDUCTION

외측 하악각 골절제술을 동반한 시상분할골절단술을 통한 골격성 3급 하악골 비대칭 환자의 치료

  • Kang, Hee-Jea (Department of Oral and Maxillofacial Surgery, School of Dentistry, Pusan National University) ;
  • Song, In-Woo (Department of Oral and Maxillofacial Surgery, School of Dentistry, Pusan National University) ;
  • Kang, Yung-Ki (Department of Oral and Maxillofacial Surgery, School of Dentistry, Pusan National University) ;
  • Kim, Jong-Ryoul (Department of Oral and Maxillofacial Surgery, School of Dentistry, Pusan National University)
  • 강희제 (부산대학교 치의학전문대학원 구강악안면외과학교실) ;
  • 송인우 (부산대학교 치의학전문대학원 구강악안면외과학교실) ;
  • 강영기 (부산대학교 치의학전문대학원 구강악안면외과학교실) ;
  • 김종렬 (부산대학교 치의학전문대학원 구강악안면외과학교실)
  • Received : 2009.12.28
  • Accepted : 2010.03.02
  • Published : 2010.03.31
Download PDF
⟨ Previous Next ⟩

Abstract

Purpose: The aim of this study is to identify the usefulness of unilateral mandibular angle ostectomy, so-called "Lateral Angle Reduction", in asymmetric prognathism patients by the assessment of postoperative stability and esthetic results Patients and methods: For the retrospective study, 10 skeletal class III mandibular asymmetry patients who were performed SSRO and unilateral mandibular angle ostectomy, Lateral Angle Reduction, was selected. Lateral and posterioanterior cephalogram was taken before surgery (T0), 1day after surgery (T1) and 6month after surgery (T2). To know the esthetic results the facial width and lateral facial contour were examined on posterioanterior cephalogram and to know the postoperative stability B point and Incisor inferius was examined on lateral cephalogram. Statistical analysis was performed. Results: From T0 to T1, Intergonial width was significantly decreased, dominantly at shortened side but no significant changes at lengthened side. Those were well-maintained during 6 months. Lateral facial angle and Ramus angle was significantly decreased on only shortened side from T0 to T1. As a result, after surgery, there were no significant differences in all measurements between shortened side and lengthened side. Ramus deviation angle in shortened side and ramus angle in lengthened side which reflect the angulation of ramus on frontal plane didn't show significant changes after surgery and during postsurgical periods. Lower dental midline showed no statistical changes during postsurgical period. The relapse rate on B-point was 11.92%. Conclusion: Unilateral "Lateral angle reduction" in the asymmetric mandible is valuable to obtain the narrow lower face and symmetric facial contour with a good stability.

Keywords

References

  1. Bishara SE, Burkey PS, Kharouf JG : Dental and facial asymmetries: a review. Angle Orthod 64 : 89, 1994.
  2. Beyer JW, Lindauer SJ : Evaluation of dental midline position. Semin Orthod 4 : 146, 1998. https://doi.org/10.1016/S1073-8746(98)80016-9
  3. Padwa BL, Kaiser MO, Kaban LB : Occlusal cant in the frontal plane as a reflection of facial asymmetry. J Oral Maxillofac Surg 55 : 811, 1998.
  4. Severt TR, Proffit WR : The prevalence of facial asymmetry in the dentofacial deformities population at the University of North Carolina. Int J Adult Orthodon Orthognath Surg 12 : 171, 1997.
  5. Haraguchi S, Takada K, Yasuda Y : Facial asymmetry in subjects with skeletal Class III deformity. Angle Orthod 72 : 28, 2002.
  6. Maeda M, Katsumata A, Ariji Y et al : 3D-CT evaluation of facial asymmetry in patients with maxillofacial deformities. Oral Surg Oral Med Oral Pathol Oral Radiol Endod 102 : 382, 2006. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tripleo.2005.10.057
  7. Baek SH, Kim TK, Kim MJ : Is there any difference in the condylar position and angulation after asymmetric mandibular setback? Oral Surg Oral Med Oral Pathol Oral Radiol Endod 101 : 155, 2006. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tripleo.2005.04.007
  8. Epker BN, stella JP, Fish LC : Dentofacial deformities, Intergrated Orthodontic and Surgical correction Vol IV, 2nd ed, St. Louise, Mosby, 1999, p.2186.
  9. Rotskoff KS, Herbosa EG, Villa P : Maintenance of condyle-proximal segment position in orthognathic surgery. J Oral Maxillofac Surg 49 : 2, 1991.
  10. Obwegeser HL : Mandibular growth anomalies, 1st ed. Heidelberg, Springer, 2001, p.199.
  11. Yoshida K, Rivera RS, Kaneko M et al : Minimizing displacement of the proximal segment after bilateral sagittal split ramus osteotomy in asymmetric cases. J Oral Maxillofac Surg 59 : 15, 2001. https://doi.org/10.1053/joms.2001.19264
  12. Kim MJ, Kim SG, Park YW : Positional stability following intentional posterior ostectomy of the distal segment in bilateral sagittal split ramus osteotomy for correction of mandibular prognathism. J Craniomaxillofac Surg 30 : 35, 2002. https://doi.org/10.1054/jcms.2001.0272
  13. Ellis E 3rd : A method to passively align the sagittal ramus osteotomy segments. J Oral Maxillofac Surg 65 : 2125, 2007. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.joms.2007.02.005
  14. Becktor JP, Rebellato J, Becktor KB et al : Transverse displacement of the proximal segment after bilateral sagittal osteotomy. J Oral Maxillofac Surg 60 : 395, 2002. https://doi.org/10.1053/joms.2002.31227
  15. Ghafari J, Cater PE, Shofer FS : Effect of film-object distance on posteroanterior cephalometric measurements: suggestions for standardized cephalometric methods. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop 108 : 30, 1995. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0889-5406(95)70063-3
  16. Yoon YJ, Kim DH, Yu PS et al: Effect of head rotation on posteroanterior cephalometric radiographs. Angle Orthod 72 : 36, 2002.
  17. Ishiguro K, Krogman WM, Mazaheri M et al : A longitudinal study of morphological craniofacial patterns via P-A x-ray headfilms in cleft. patients from birth to six years of age. Cleft. Palate J 13 : 104, 1976.
  18. Baek SM, Kim SS, Bindiger A : The prominent mandibular angle: preoperative management, operative technique, and results in 42 patients. Plast Reconstr Surg 83 : 272, 1989. https://doi.org/10.1097/00006534-198902000-00012
  19. Deguchi M, lio Y, Kobayashi K et al: Angle-splitting ostectomy for reducing the width of the lower face. Plast Reconstr Surg 99: 1831, 1997. https://doi.org/10.1097/00006534-199706000-00005
  20. Watzke IM, Heinrich A : The impact of bilateral sagittal split osteotomy on mandibular width and morphology. J Oral Maxillofac Surg 60 : 502. 2002. https://doi.org/10.1053/joms.2002.31845
  21. Choi HS, Rebellato J, Yoon HJ et al : Effect of mandibular setback via bilateral sagittal split ramus osteotomy on transverse displacement of the proximal segment. J Oral Maxillofac Surg 63: 908, 2005. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.joms.2004.06.064
  22. Kim JS, Chang HH, Ryu SH et al : Gonial angle reduction during mandibular sagittal split ramus osteotomy. Kor J Oral Maxillofac Surg 27 : 258, 2001.
  23. Pelo S. Moro A, Foresti M et al : Osteotomy of the external cortex of the gonial angle in the correction of mandibular asymmetry. Minerva Stomatol 48 : 311, 1999.
  24. Angle AD, Rebellato J, Sheats RD : Transverse displacement of the proximal segment after bilatoral sagittal split osteotomy advancement and its effect on relapse. J Oral Maxillofac Surg 65 : 50, 2007. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.joms.2005.11.117
  25. Kim CH, Lee JH, Cho JY et al : Skeletal stability after simultaneous mandibular angle resection and sagittal split ramus osteotomy for correction of mandible prognathism. J Oral Maxillofac Surg 65 : 192, 2007. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.joms.2005.12.064
  26. de Villa GH, Huang CS, Chen PK et al : Bilateral sagittal split osteotomy for correction of mandibular prognathism: long-term results. J Oral Maxillofac Surg 63 : 1584, 2005. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.joms.2005.03.031
  27. Huang CS, de Villa GH, Liou EJ et al : Mandibular remodeling after bilateral sagittal split osteotomy for prognathism of the mandible. J Oral Maxillofac Surg 64 : 167, 2006. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.joms.2005.10.008