3D simulation of interosseous interference in sagittal split ramus osteotomy for mandibular asymmetry
Tóm tắt
The purpose of this study was to evaluate the pattern of predicted interosseous interference and to determine the influencing factor to volume of bony interference using a computer-assisted simulation system. This retrospective study recruited 116 patients with mandibular prognathism who had undergone sagittal split ramus osteotomy (SSRO) with or without maxillary osteotomy. The patients were divided into 3 groups according to the amount of menton (Me) deviation: less than 2 mm (Group 1), 2–4 mm (Group 2), and more than 4 mm (Group 3). Changes in the distal segments following BSSRO and the volume of the interosseous interference between the proximal and distal segments were simulated after matching preoperative occlusion and postoperative expected occlusion with the cone-beam computed tomography data. Ramal inclinations and other skeletal measurements were analyzed before surgery, immediately after surgery, and at least 6 months after surgery. The anticipated interosseous interference was more frequently noted on the contralateral side of chin deviation (long side) than the deviated site (short side) in Groups 2 and 3. More interference volume was predicted at the long side (186 ± 343.9 mm3) rather than the short side (54.4 ± 124.4 mm3) in Group 3 (p = 0.033). The bilateral difference in the volume of the interosseous interference of the osteotomized mandible was significantly correlated with the Me deviation (r = − 0.257, p = 0.009) and bilateral ramal inclination (r = 0.361, p < 0.001). The predictor variable that affected the volume of the osseous interference at each side was the amount of Me deviation (p = 0.010). By using the 3D simulation system, the potential site of bony collision could be visualized and successfully reduced intraoperatively. Since the osseous interference can be existed on any side, unilaterally or bilaterally, 3D surgical simulation is necessary before surgery to predict the osseous interference and improve the ramal inclination.
Tài liệu tham khảo
Schwartz HC (2011) Efficient surgical management of mandibular asymmetry. J Oral Maxillofac Surg 69:645–654. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.joms.2009.03.009
Xia JJ, Gateno J, Teichgraeber JF, Yuan P, Chen KC, Li J et al (2015) Algorithm for planning a double-jaw orthognathic surgery using a computer-aided surgical simulation (CASS) protocol. Part 1: planning sequence. Int J Oral Maxillofac Surg 44:1431–1440. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijom.2015.06.006
Yang HJ, Lee WJ, Yi WJ, Hwang SJ (2010) Interferences between mandibular proximal and distal segments in orthognathic surgery for patients with asymmetric mandibular prognathism depending on different osteotomy techniques. Oral Surg Oral Med Oral Pathol Oral Radiol Endod 110:18–24. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jcms.2013.05.021
Kwon TG (2017) Three-dimensional surgical simulation for facial asymmetry: soft tissue-, skeleton-, and occlusion-based planning. Maxillofac Plast Reconstr Surg 2017(39):36. https://doi.org/10.1186/s40902-017-0135-z
Valls-Ontanon A, Ascencio-Padilla RDJ, Vela-Lasagabaster A, Sada-Malumbres A, Haas-Junior OL, Masia-Gridilla J et al (2020) Relevance of 3D virtual planning in predicting bony interferences between distal and proximal fragments after sagittal split osteotomy. Int J Oral Maxillofac Surg 49:1020–1028. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijom.2019.12.001
Lonic D, Pai BC, Yamaguchi K, Chortrakarnkij P, Lin HH, Lo LJ (2016) Computer-assisted orthognathic surgery for patients with cleft lip/palate: from traditional planning to three-dimensional surgical simulation. PLoS One 11:e0152014. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0152014
Schwartz HC (2014) Does computer-aided surgical simulation improve efficiency in bimaxillary orthognathic surgery? Int J Oral Maxillofac Surg 43:572–576. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijom.2013.10.018
De Riu G, Meloni SM, Baj A, Corda A, Soma D, Tullio A (2014) Computer-assisted orthognathic surgery for correction of facial asymmetry: results of a randomised controlled clinical trial. Br J Oral Maxillofac Surg 52:251–257. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.bjoms.2013.12.010
Mori Y, Shimizu H, Minami K, Kwon TG, Mano T (2011) Development of a simulation system in mandibular orthognathic surgery based on integrated three-dimensional data. Oral Maxillofac Surg 15:131–138. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10006-010-0247-4
Schendel SA (2015) Computer simulation in the daily practice of orthognathic surgery. Int J Oral Maxillofac Surg 44:1451–1456. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijom.2015.05.022
Haraguchi S, Takada K, Yasuda Y (2002) Facial asymmetry in subjects with skeletal class III deformity. Angle Orthod 72:28–35. https://doi.org/10.1043/0003-3219(2002)072%3c0028:FAISWS%3e2.0.CO;2
Dong T, Ye N, Yuan L, Wu S, Xia L, Fang B (2020) Assessing the influence of chin asymmetry on perceived facial esthetics with 3-dimensional images. J Oral Maxillofac Surg 78(8):1389–1396. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.joms.2020.03.017
Byeon KS, Lee YJ, Yoon YJ, Hong SM, Park YH, Choi DJ et al (2013) Postoperative stability after setback of sagittal split ramus osteotomy: a comparison of three techniques. J Oral Maxillofac Surg 71:597–609. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.joms.2012.05.021
Kim CH, Lee JH, Cho JY, Kim KW (2007) Skeletal stability after simultaneous mandibular angle resection and sagittal split ramus osteotomy for correction of mandible prognathism. J Oral Maxillofac Surg 65:192–197. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.joms.2005.12.064
Ellis E 3rd (2007) A method to passively align the sagittal ramus osteotomy segments. J Oral Maxillofac Surg 65:2125–2130. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.joms.2007.02.005
Lee JS, Xi T, Kwon TG (2017) Three-dimensional analysis of mandibular condyle position in patients with deviated mandibular prognathism. Int J Oral Maxillofac Surg 46:1052–1058. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijom.2017.02.1272
Bockmann R, Meyns J, Dik E, Kessler P (2014) The modifications of the sagittal ramus split osteotomy: a literature review. Plast Reconstr Surg Glob Open 2:e271. https://doi.org/10.1097/GOX.0000000000000127
Mohlhenrich SC, Kamal M, Peters F, Fritz U, Holzle F, Modabber A (2016) Bony contact area and displacement of the temporomandibular joint after high-oblique and bilateral sagittal split osteotomy: a computer-simulated comparison. Br J Oral Maxillofac Surg 54:306–311. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.bjoms.2015.12.020
Posnick JC, Kinard BE (2021) Use of a ‘low and short’ medial cut limits sagittal ramus osteotomy interferences. Int J Oral Maxillofac Surg 50:1583–1587. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijom.2021.02.021
Kim CH, Lee JH, Cho JY, Lee JH, Kim KW (2007) Skeletal stability after simultaneous mandibular angle resection and sagittal split ramus osteotomy for correction of mandible prognathism. J Oral Maxillofac Surg 65:192–197. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.joms.2005.12.064
Kim MJ, Kim SG, Park YW (2002) Positional stability following intentional posterior ostectomy of the distal segment in bilateral sagittal split ramus osteotomy for correction of mandibular prognathism. J Craniomaxillofac Surg 30:35–40. https://doi.org/10.1054/jcms.2001.0272
Yang HJ, Hwang SJ (2014) Change in condylar position in posterior bending osteotomy minimizing condylar torque in BSSRO for facial asymmetry. J Craniomaxillofac Surg 42:325–332. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jcms.2013.05.021
Kwon TG, Mori Y, Minami K, Lee SH, Sakuda M (2000) Stability of simultaneous maxillary and mandibular osteotomy for treatment of class III malocclusion: an analysis of three-dimensional cephalograms. J Craniomaxillofac Surg 28:272–277. https://doi.org/10.1054/jcms.2000.0158
Kim CS, Lee SC, Kyung HM, Park HS, Kwon TG (2014) Stability of mandibular setback surgery with and without presurgical orthodontics. J Oral Maxillofac Surg 72:779–787. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.joms.2013.09.033
Nadjmi N, Mollemans W, Daelemans A, Van Hemelen G, Schutyser F, Berge S (2010) Virtual occlusion in planning orthognathic surgical procedures. Int J Oral Maxillofac Surg 39:457–462. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijom.2010.02.002