Skip to main content Skip to main navigation menu Skip to site footer
MedNext Journal of Medical and Health Sciences
Review
DOI: 10.54448/mdnt22S201
Submitted: 04-04-2022
Published: 04-04-2022

Orthognathic surgery in the mandibular advance: a systematic review

Stardentalxc, Dentistry Department, Quito, Ecuador; UNORP - University Center North Paulista - Sao Jose do Rio Preto, Sao Paulo, Brazil; UNIPOS - Post graduate and continuing education, Sao Jose do Rio Preto, Sao Paulo, Brazil
Stardentalxc, Dentistry Department, Quito, Ecuador; UNORP - University Center North Paulista - Sao Jose do Rio Preto, Sao Paulo, Brazil; UNIPOS - Post graduate and continuing education, Sao Jose do Rio Preto, Sao Paulo, Brazil
UNORP - University Center North Paulista - Sao Jose do Rio Preto, Sao Paulo, Brazil; UNIPOS - Post graduate and continuing education, Sao Jose do Rio Preto, Sao Paulo, Brazil
UNORP - University Center North Paulista - Sao Jose do Rio Preto, Sao Paulo, Brazil; UNIPOS - Post graduate and continuing education, Sao Jose do Rio Preto, Sao Paulo, Brazil
UNORP - University Center North Paulista - Sao Jose do Rio Preto, Sao Paulo, Brazil; UNIPOS - Post graduate and continuing education, Sao Jose do Rio Preto, Sao Paulo, Brazil
Orthognathic surgery Maxillary deformities Mandibular advance Bone graft

Abstract

Introduction: Orthognathic surgery is a standardized procedure used to improve a patient's facial appearance and to correct maxillary and mandibular deformities resulting from malocclusions, disease or trauma. Bilateral sagittal osteotomy of the mandibular ramus is a technique widely used in orthognathic surgery to correct mandibular deformities. Mandibular advancement is a procedure with a high risk of skeletal recurrence, due to the difference between the proximal and distal bone segments. Objective: To carry out a systematic review of orthognathic surgery in the mandibular advance, focusing on the main challenges and importance. Methods: The present study was followed by a systematic literature review model - PRISMA rules. The quality of the studies was based on the GRADE instrument. The risk of bias was analyzed according to the Cochrane instrument. Results and Conclusion: Bilateral sagittal osteotomy is the most used technique in mandibular orthognathic surgery, allowing mandibular movements in the sagittal, vertical and transverse directions, with good results and few complications. However, this technique can cause mandibular advancements above 10 mm, strongly pointing to the placement of a bone graft in order to avoid defects and their complications. Therefore, in orthognathic surgery, bone grafting can accelerate bone formation.

Metrics

Metrics Loading ...

References

  1. Alkhayer A, Piffkó J, Lippold C, Segatto E. Accuracy of virtual planning in orthognathic surgery: a systematic review. Head Face Med. 2020 Dec 4;16(1):34. doi: 10.1186/s13005-020-00250-2. PMID: 33272289; PMCID: PMC7716456.
  2. Ferri J, Schlund M, Touzet-Roumazeille S. Orthognathic Surgery in Craniosynostosis. J Craniofac Surg. 2021 Jan-Feb 01;32(1):141-148. doi: 10.1097/SCS.0000000000007154. PMID: 33027175.
  3. Cascino F, Aboh IV, Giovannoni ME, Pini N, Zerini F, Del Frate R, Carangelo BR, Xu J, Gabriele G, Gennaro P, Iannetti G. Orthognathic surgery: a randomized study comparing Piezosurgery and Saw techniques. Ann Ital Chir. 2021;92:299-304. PMID: 33346183.
  4. Cunha G, Oliveira MR, Salmen FS, Gabrielli MFR, Gabrielli MAC. How does bone thickness affect the split pattern of sagittal ramus osteotomy? Int J Oral Maxillofac Surg. 2020 Feb;49(2):218-223. doi: 10.1016/j.ijom.2019.05.011. Epub 2019 Jun 22. PMID: 31239083.
  5. Steenen SA, Becking AG. Bad splits in bilateral sagittal split osteotomy: systematic review of fracture patterns. Int J Oral Maxillofac Surg. 2016 Jul;45(7):887-97. doi: 10.1016/j.ijom.2016.02.001. Epub 2016 Feb 28. PMID: 26936377.
  6. Lin HH, Lonic D, Lo LJ. 3D printing in orthognathic surgery − A literature review. Journal of the Formosan Medical Association, v. 117, n. 7, p. 547–558, 2018.
  7. Di Blasio C, Anghinoni ML, Di Blasio A. Virtual planning of a complex three-part bimaxillary osteotomy. Case Reports in Dentistry, v. 2017, n. 4, 2017.
  8. Hernández-Alfaro F. et al. Three-Dimensional Analysis of Long-Term Stability After Bilateral Sagittal Split Ramus Osteotomy Fixed With a Single Miniplate With 4 Monocortical Screws and 1 Bicortical Screw: A Retrospective 2-Center Study. Journal of Oral and Maxillofacial Surgery, v. 75, n. 5, p. 1036–1045, 2017.
  9. Friscia M. et al. Complications after orthognathic surgery: our experience on 423 cases. Oral and Maxillofacial Surgery, v. 21, n. 2, p. 171–177, 2017.
  10. Kuvat SV. et al. Improving bony stability in maxillofacial surgery: use of osteogenetic materials in patients with profound (≥5 mm) maxillary advancement, a clinical study. Journal of Plastic, Reconstructive and Aesthetic Surgery, v. 62, n. 5, p. 639–645, 2009.
  11. Ueki K. et al. Effect of self-setting α-tricalcium phosphate between segments for bone healing and hypoaesthesia in lower lip after sagittal split ramus osteotomy. Journal of Cranio-Maxillofacial Surgery, v. 40, n. 4, p. e119–e124, 2012.
  12. Lee BS, Ohe JY, Kim BK. Differences in bone remodeling using demineralized bone matrix in bilateral sagittal split ramus osteotomy: A study on volumetric analysis using three-dimensional cone-beam computed tomography. Journal of Oral and Maxillofacial Surgery, v. 72, n. 6, p. 1151–1157, 2014.
  13. Trevisiol L. et al. Grafting of large mandibular advancement with a collagen-coated bovine bone (bio-oss collagen) in orthognathic surgery. Journal of Craniofacial Surgery, v. 23, n. 5, p. 1343–1348, 2012.
  14. Rohner D, Hailemariam S, Hammer B. Le fort i osteotomies using Bio-Oss® Collagen to promote bony union: A prospective clinical split-mouth study. International Journal of Oral and Maxillofacial Surgery, v. 42, n. 5, p. 585–591, 2013.
  15. Moher D, Liberati A, Tetzlaff J, Altman DG, The PRISMA Group (2009) Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses: The PRISMA Statement. PLoS Med 6(7): e1000097. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pmed.1000097.
  16. Balshem H et al. Grade guidelines: 3 ratng the quality of evidence. Journal of Clinical Epidemiology, Maryland Heights, v. 64, n. 4, p. 401-406, 2011
  17. Higgins J, Green S. Cochrane Handbook for Systematic Reviews of Interventions. Version 5.1.0 [updated March 2011]. The Cochrane Collaboration; 2011.
  18. Epker BN. Modifications in the sagittal osteotomy of the mandible. Journal of Oral Surgery, v.35, p.157–9, 1977.
  19. Dimitroulis G. A simple classification of orthognathic surgery complications. Int J Adult Orthodon Orthognath Surg. 1998;13(1):79-87.
  20. Steel BJ, Cope MR. Unusual and rare complications of orthognathic surgery: a literature review. J Oral Maxillofac Surg. 2012;70(7):1678-91.
  21. Kim SG, Park SS. Incidence of complications and problems related to orthognathic surgery. J Oral Maxillofac Surg. 2007;65(12):2438-44.
  22. Agbaje JO, Sun Y, Vrielinck L, Schepers S, Lambrichts I, Politis C. Risk factors for the development of lower border defects after bilateral sagittal split osteotomy. J Oral Maxillofac Surg. 2013;71(3):588-96.
  23. Cifuentes J, Yanine N, Jerez D, Barrera A, Agbaje JO, Politis C. Use of Bone Grafts or Modified Bilateral Sagittal Split Osteotomy Technique in Large Mandibular Advancements Reduces the Risk of Persisting Mandibular Inferior Border Defects. J Oral Maxillofac Surg. 2018 Jan;76(1):189.e1-189.e6. doi: 10.1016/j.joms.2017.09.002. Epub 2017 Sep 11. PMID: 28963868.
  24. Agbaje JO, Gemels B, Salem AS, Anumendem D, Vrielinck L, Politis C. Modified Mandibular Inferior Border Sagittal Split Osteotomy Reduces Postoperative Risk for Developing Inferior Border Defects. J Oral Maxillofac Surg. 2016;74(5):1062.e1-9.
  25. Lee BS, Ohe JY, Kim BK. Differences in bone remodeling using demineralized bone matrix in bilateral sagittal split ramus osteotomy: a study on volumetric analysis using three-dimensional cone-beam computed tomography. J Oral Maxillofac Surg. 2014 Jun;72(6):1151-7.doi: 10.1016/j.joms.2013.11.011. Epub 2013 Nov 21. PMID: 24480774.
  26. Raffaini M, Magri AS, Giuntini V, Nieri M, Pantani C, Conti M. How to Prevent Mandibular Lower Border Notching After Bilateral Sagittal Split Osteotomies for Major Advancements: Analysis of 168 Osteotomies. J Oral Maxillofac Surg. 2020 Sep;78(9):1620-1626. doi: 10.1016/j.joms.2020.04.036. Epub 2020 May 1. PMID: 32479810.
  27. Van der Helm HC, Kraeima J, Xi T, Jansma J, Schepers RH. The use of xenografts to prevent inferior border defects following bilateral sagittal split osteotomies: three-dimensional skeletal analysis using cone beam computed tomography. Int J Oral Maxillofac Surg. 2020 Aug;49(8):1029-1035. doi: 10.1016/j.ijom.2020.01.006. Epub 2020 Jan 24. PMID: 31987591.
  28. Kang, Myoung & Yun, Kyoung & Kim, Chang Hyun & Park, Je Uk. (2010). Postoperative Condylar Position by Sagittal Split Ramus Osteotomy With and Without Bone Graft. Journal of oral and maxillofacial surgery: official journal of the American Association of Oral and Maxillofacial Surgeons. 68. 2058-64. 10.1016/j.joms.2009.12.015.

How to Cite

Correa Llano, X. G., Flores Abarca, M. E., Sant’ana, E., Moura Neto, G., & Moura, R. F. (2022). Orthognathic surgery in the mandibular advance: a systematic review. MedNEXT Journal of Medical and Health Sciences, 3(S2). https://doi.org/10.54448/mdnt22S201