Comparative Study of Skeletal Stability between Postoperative Skeletal Intermaxillary Fixation and No Skeletal Fixation after Bilateral Sagittal Split Ramus Osteotomy: an 18 Months Retrospective Study

Jens Hartlev, Erik Godtfredsen, Niels Trolle Andersen, Thomas Jensen

Research output: Contribution to journalJournal articleResearchpeer-review

Abstract

OBJECTIVES: The purpose of the present study was to evaluate skeletal stability after mandibular advancement with bilateral sagittal split osteotomy.

MATERIAL AND METHODS: Twenty-six patients underwent single-jaw bilateral sagittal split osteotomy (BSSO) to correct skeletal Class II malocclusion. One group (n = 13) were treated postoperatively with skeletal elastic intermaxillary fixation (IMF) while the other group (n = 13) where threated without skeletal elastic IMF.

RESULTS: The mean advancement at B-point and Pog in the skeletal elastic IMF group was 6.44 mm and 7.22 mm, respectively. Relapse at follow-up at B-point was -0.74 mm and -0.29 mm at Pog. The mean advancement at B-point and Pog in the no skeletal elastic IMF group was 6.30 mm and 6.45 mm, respectively. Relapse at follow-up at B-point was -0.97 mm and -0.86 mm at Pog. There was no statistical significant (P > 0.05) difference between the skeletal IMF group and the no skeletal group regarding advancement nor relapse at B-point or Pog.

CONCLUSIONS: Bilateral sagittal split osteotomy is characterized as a stable treatment to correct Class II malocclusion. This study demonstrated no difference of relapse between the skeletal intermaxillary fixation group and the no skeletal intermaxillary fixation group. Because of selection-bias and the reduced number of patients it still remains inconclusive whether to recommend skeletal intermaxillary fixation or not in the prevention of relapse after mandibular advancement.

Original languageEnglish
Article numbere2
JournaleJournal of Oral And Maxillofacial Research
Volume5
Issue number1
ISSN2029-283X
DOIs
Publication statusPublished - Jan 2014

Fingerprint

Sagittal Split Ramus Osteotomy
Fracture Fixation
Retrospective Studies
Osteotomy
Mandibular Advancement
Recurrence
Malocclusion
Selection Bias
Secondary Prevention
Jaw

Cite this

@article{d123ceb77c9d47c28cecb3936e0d3ba9,
title = "Comparative Study of Skeletal Stability between Postoperative Skeletal Intermaxillary Fixation and No Skeletal Fixation after Bilateral Sagittal Split Ramus Osteotomy: an 18 Months Retrospective Study",
abstract = "OBJECTIVES: The purpose of the present study was to evaluate skeletal stability after mandibular advancement with bilateral sagittal split osteotomy.MATERIAL AND METHODS: Twenty-six patients underwent single-jaw bilateral sagittal split osteotomy (BSSO) to correct skeletal Class II malocclusion. One group (n = 13) were treated postoperatively with skeletal elastic intermaxillary fixation (IMF) while the other group (n = 13) where threated without skeletal elastic IMF.RESULTS: The mean advancement at B-point and Pog in the skeletal elastic IMF group was 6.44 mm and 7.22 mm, respectively. Relapse at follow-up at B-point was -0.74 mm and -0.29 mm at Pog. The mean advancement at B-point and Pog in the no skeletal elastic IMF group was 6.30 mm and 6.45 mm, respectively. Relapse at follow-up at B-point was -0.97 mm and -0.86 mm at Pog. There was no statistical significant (P > 0.05) difference between the skeletal IMF group and the no skeletal group regarding advancement nor relapse at B-point or Pog.CONCLUSIONS: Bilateral sagittal split osteotomy is characterized as a stable treatment to correct Class II malocclusion. This study demonstrated no difference of relapse between the skeletal intermaxillary fixation group and the no skeletal intermaxillary fixation group. Because of selection-bias and the reduced number of patients it still remains inconclusive whether to recommend skeletal intermaxillary fixation or not in the prevention of relapse after mandibular advancement.",
author = "Jens Hartlev and Erik Godtfredsen and Andersen, {Niels Trolle} and Thomas Jensen",
year = "2014",
month = "1",
doi = "10.5037/jomr.2014.5102",
language = "English",
volume = "5",
journal = "eJournal of Oral And Maxillofacial Research",
issn = "2029-283X",
publisher = "STILUS OPTIMUS",
number = "1",

}

Comparative Study of Skeletal Stability between Postoperative Skeletal Intermaxillary Fixation and No Skeletal Fixation after Bilateral Sagittal Split Ramus Osteotomy : an 18 Months Retrospective Study. / Hartlev, Jens; Godtfredsen, Erik; Andersen, Niels Trolle; Jensen, Thomas.

In: eJournal of Oral And Maxillofacial Research, Vol. 5, No. 1, e2, 01.2014.

Research output: Contribution to journalJournal articleResearchpeer-review

TY - JOUR

T1 - Comparative Study of Skeletal Stability between Postoperative Skeletal Intermaxillary Fixation and No Skeletal Fixation after Bilateral Sagittal Split Ramus Osteotomy

T2 - an 18 Months Retrospective Study

AU - Hartlev, Jens

AU - Godtfredsen, Erik

AU - Andersen, Niels Trolle

AU - Jensen, Thomas

PY - 2014/1

Y1 - 2014/1

N2 - OBJECTIVES: The purpose of the present study was to evaluate skeletal stability after mandibular advancement with bilateral sagittal split osteotomy.MATERIAL AND METHODS: Twenty-six patients underwent single-jaw bilateral sagittal split osteotomy (BSSO) to correct skeletal Class II malocclusion. One group (n = 13) were treated postoperatively with skeletal elastic intermaxillary fixation (IMF) while the other group (n = 13) where threated without skeletal elastic IMF.RESULTS: The mean advancement at B-point and Pog in the skeletal elastic IMF group was 6.44 mm and 7.22 mm, respectively. Relapse at follow-up at B-point was -0.74 mm and -0.29 mm at Pog. The mean advancement at B-point and Pog in the no skeletal elastic IMF group was 6.30 mm and 6.45 mm, respectively. Relapse at follow-up at B-point was -0.97 mm and -0.86 mm at Pog. There was no statistical significant (P > 0.05) difference between the skeletal IMF group and the no skeletal group regarding advancement nor relapse at B-point or Pog.CONCLUSIONS: Bilateral sagittal split osteotomy is characterized as a stable treatment to correct Class II malocclusion. This study demonstrated no difference of relapse between the skeletal intermaxillary fixation group and the no skeletal intermaxillary fixation group. Because of selection-bias and the reduced number of patients it still remains inconclusive whether to recommend skeletal intermaxillary fixation or not in the prevention of relapse after mandibular advancement.

AB - OBJECTIVES: The purpose of the present study was to evaluate skeletal stability after mandibular advancement with bilateral sagittal split osteotomy.MATERIAL AND METHODS: Twenty-six patients underwent single-jaw bilateral sagittal split osteotomy (BSSO) to correct skeletal Class II malocclusion. One group (n = 13) were treated postoperatively with skeletal elastic intermaxillary fixation (IMF) while the other group (n = 13) where threated without skeletal elastic IMF.RESULTS: The mean advancement at B-point and Pog in the skeletal elastic IMF group was 6.44 mm and 7.22 mm, respectively. Relapse at follow-up at B-point was -0.74 mm and -0.29 mm at Pog. The mean advancement at B-point and Pog in the no skeletal elastic IMF group was 6.30 mm and 6.45 mm, respectively. Relapse at follow-up at B-point was -0.97 mm and -0.86 mm at Pog. There was no statistical significant (P > 0.05) difference between the skeletal IMF group and the no skeletal group regarding advancement nor relapse at B-point or Pog.CONCLUSIONS: Bilateral sagittal split osteotomy is characterized as a stable treatment to correct Class II malocclusion. This study demonstrated no difference of relapse between the skeletal intermaxillary fixation group and the no skeletal intermaxillary fixation group. Because of selection-bias and the reduced number of patients it still remains inconclusive whether to recommend skeletal intermaxillary fixation or not in the prevention of relapse after mandibular advancement.

U2 - 10.5037/jomr.2014.5102

DO - 10.5037/jomr.2014.5102

M3 - Journal article

VL - 5

JO - eJournal of Oral And Maxillofacial Research

JF - eJournal of Oral And Maxillofacial Research

SN - 2029-283X

IS - 1

M1 - e2

ER -