Advertisement

How effective is a thick plate on stabilisation in 10 mm mandibular advancement?

  • Alparslan Esen
    Correspondence
    Corresponding author at: Necmettin Erbakan Universitesi Dis Hekimligi Fakultesi, Beysehir Cd. Baglarbasi Sk, 42090 Meram, Konya, Turkey.
    Affiliations
    Necmettin Erbakan University, Faculty of Dentistry, Department of Oral and Maxillofacial Surgery, Beysehir Cd. Baglarbasi Sk, 42090 Meram, Konya, Turkey
    Search for articles by this author
  • Dilek Menziletoglu
    Affiliations
    Necmettin Erbakan University, Faculty of Dentistry, Department of Oral and Maxillofacial Surgery, Beysehir Cd. Baglarbasi Sk, 42090 Meram, Konya, Turkey
    Search for articles by this author
  • Emire Aybüke Erdur
    Affiliations
    Necmettin Erbakan University, Faculty of Dentistry, Department of Orthodontics, Beysehir Cd. Baglarbasi Sk, 42090 Meram, Konya, Turkey
    Search for articles by this author
  • Sebnem Akkulah
    Affiliations
    Necmettin Erbakan University, Faculty of Dentistry, Department of Oral and Maxillofacial Surgery, Beysehir Cd. Baglarbasi Sk, 42090 Meram, Konya, Turkey
    Search for articles by this author
Published:November 26, 2021DOI:https://doi.org/10.1016/j.bjoms.2021.11.014

      Abstract

      We compared the stability and stress analysis of four different fixation methods after sagittal split ramus osteotomy (SSRO) in mandibular models. In the first model (1P1B) we adapted a four-hole, 2.0 mm standard miniplate on the osteotomy line with one bicortical screw at the top. In the second (2P) we placed two four-hole 2.0 mm standard miniplates above and below the osteotomy line. In the third (3B), we applied three inverted L-shaped bicortical screws, and in the last (1RP1B) we used a four-hole miniplate with increased thickness on the osteotomy line with one bicortical screw at the top. A static vertical load of 200 Newtons (N) was then applied to each model from the occlusal of the first molar. The maximum and minimum principal stresses on the bone were observed more in the proximal segment close to the osteotomy line in all groups. Maximum von Mises stresses were 2705.21 Megapascals (MPa), 1633.56 MPa, 1121.4 MPa, and 1734.44 MPa for the 1P1B, 2P, 3B, and 1RP1B groups, respectively. Displacement values were 1.92 mm, 1.15 mm, 0.79 mm, and 1.42 mm for the 1P1B, 2P, 3B, and 1RP1B groups, respectively. The reinforced plate contributed to the stabilisation, but it was not as effective as three bicortical screws and a double plate.

      Keywords

      To read this article in full you will need to make a payment

      Purchase one-time access:

      Academic & Personal: 24 hour online accessCorporate R&D Professionals: 24 hour online access
      One-time access price info
      • For academic or personal research use, select 'Academic and Personal'
      • For corporate R&D use, select 'Corporate R&D Professionals'

      Subscribe:

      Subscribe to British Journal of Oral and Maxillofacial Surgery
      Already a print subscriber? Claim online access
      Already an online subscriber? Sign in
      Institutional Access: Sign in to ScienceDirect

      References

        • Van Sickels J.E.
        • Richardson D.A.
        Stability of orthognathic surgery: a review of rigid fixation.
        Br J Oral Maxillofac Surg. 1996; 34: 279-285
        • Schreuder W.H.
        • Jansma J.
        • Bierman M.W.
        • et al.
        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: 103-110
        • Mobarak K.A.
        • Espeland L.
        • Krogstad O.
        • et al.
        Mandibular advancement surgery in high-angle and low-angle class II patients: different long-term skeletal responses.
        Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop. 2001; 119: 368-381
        • Chen Y.
        • Zhang J.
        • Rao N.
        • et al.
        Do patients with different mandibular plane angles have different time to relapse after bilateral sagittal osteotomy with mandibular advancement?.
        J Oral Maxillofac Surg. 2020; 78: 455-466
        • Van Sickels J.E.
        • Dolce C.
        • Keeling S.
        • et al.
        Technical factors accounting for stability of a bilateral sagittal split osteotomy advancement: wire osteosynthesis versus rigid fixation.
        Oral Surg Oral Med Oral Pathol Oral Radiol Endod. 2000; 89: 19-23
        • Joss C.U.
        • Vassalli I.M.
        Stability after bilateral sagittal split osteotomy advancement surgery with rigid internal fixation: a systematic review.
        J Oral Maxillofac Surg. 2009; 67: 301-313
        • Sato F.R.
        • Asprino L.
        • Fernandes Moreira R.W.
        • et al.
        Comparison of postoperative stability of three rigid internal fixation techniques after sagittal split ramus osteotomy for mandibular advancement.
        J Craniomaxillofac Surg. 2014; 42: e224-e229
        • Noller M.W.
        • Guilleminault C.
        • Gouveia C.J.
        • et al.
        Mandibular advancement for adult obstructive sleep apnea: a systematic review and meta-analysis.
        J Craniomaxillofac Surg. 2017; 45: 2035-2040
        • Blomqvist J.E.
        • Ahlborg G.
        • Isaksson S.
        • et al.
        A comparison of skeletal stability after mandibular advancement and use of two rigid internal fixation techniques.
        J Oral Maxillofac Surg. 1997; 55: 568-575
        • Kahnberg K.E.
        • Kashani H.
        • Owman-Moll P.
        Sagittal split advancement osteotomy: comparison of the tendency to relapse after two different methods of rigid fixation.
        Scand J Plast Reconstr Surg Hand Surg. 2007; 41: 167-172
        • Al-Moraissi E.A.
        • Al-Hendi E.A.
        Are bicortical screw and plate osteosynthesis techniques equal in providing skeletal stability with the bilateral sagittal split osteotomy when used for mandibular advancement surgery? A systematic review and meta-analysis.
        Int J Oral Maxillofac Surg. 2016; 45: 1195-1200
        • Brasileiro B.F.
        • Grempel R.G.
        • Ambrosano G.M.
        • et al.
        An in vitro evaluation of rigid internal fixation techniques for sagittal split ramus osteotomies: advancement surgery.
        J Oral Maxillofac Surg. 2009; 67: 809-817
        • Ribeiro-Junior P.D.
        • Magro-Filho O.
        • Shastri K.A.
        • et al.
        In vitro biomechanical evaluation of the use of conventional and locking miniplate/screw systems for sagittal split ramus osteotomy.
        J Oral Maxillofac Surg. 2010; 68: 724-730
        • Sato F.R.
        • Asprino L.
        • Consani S.
        • et al.
        Comparative biomechanical and photoelastic evaluation of different fixation techniques of sagittal split ramus osteotomy in mandibular advancement.
        J Oral Maxillofac Surg. 2010; 68: 160-166
        • Klein G.B.
        • Mendes G.C.
        • Ribeiro Junior P.D.
        • et al.
        Biomechanical evaluation of different osteosynthesis methods after mandibular sagittal split osteotomy in major advancements.
        Int J Oral Maxillofac Surg. 2017; 46: 1387-1393
        • Sigua-Rodriguez E.A.
        • Caldas R.A.
        • Goulart D.R.
        • et al.
        Comparative evaluation of different fixation techniques for sagittal split ramus osteotomy in 10 mm advancements. Part two: finite element analysis.
        J Craniomaxillofac Surg. 2019; 47: 1015-1019
        • da Silveira M.L.
        • de Oliveira Bueno M.L.
        • da Silva J.S.
        • et al.
        Biomechanical analysis in mandibular advancement and occlusal plane rotation with finite element analysis.
        Br J Oral Maxillofac Surg. 2021; 59: 362-367
        • Tabrizi R.
        • Nili M.
        • Aliabadi E.
        • et al.
        Skeletal stability following mandibular advancement: is it influenced by the magnitude of advancement or changes of the mandibular plane angle?.
        J Korean Assoc Oral Maxillofac Surg. 2017; 43: 152-159
        • Esen A.
        • Soganci E.
        • Dolanmaz E.
        • et al.
        Evaluation of stress by finite element analysis of the midface and skull base at the time of midpalatal osteotomy in models with or without pterygomaxillary dysjunction.
        Br J Oral Maxillofac Surg. 2018; 56: 177-181
        • Esen A.
        • Dolanmaz E.
        • Dolanmaz D.
        Evaluation of stress distribution in critical anatomic regions following the Le Fort I osteotomy by three-dimensional finite element analysis.
        J Craniomaxillofac Surg. 2019; 47: 431-437