Àá½Ã¸¸ ±â´Ù·Á ÁÖ¼¼¿ä. ·ÎµùÁßÀÔ´Ï´Ù.

Does maxillomandibular fixation affect skeletal stability following mandibular advancement? A single-blind clinical trial

Maxillofacial Plastic and Reconstructive Surgery 2022³â 44±Ç 1È£ p.19 ~ 19
Tabrizi Reza, Sarrafzadeh Arash, Shafiei Shervin, Moslemi Hamidreza, Dastgir Ramtin,
¼Ò¼Ó »ó¼¼Á¤º¸
 ( Tabrizi Reza ) - Shahid Beheshti University of Medical Sciences School of Dentistry Department of Oral and Maxillofacial Surgery
 ( Sarrafzadeh Arash ) - Shahid Beheshti University of Medical Sciences School of Dentistry Department of Oral and Maxillofacial Surgery
 ( Shafiei Shervin ) - Shahid Beheshti University of Medical Sciences School of Dentistry Department of Oral and Maxillofacial Surgery
 ( Moslemi Hamidreza ) - Shahid Beheshti University of Medical Sciences School of Dentistry Department of Oral and Maxillofacial Surgery
 ( Dastgir Ramtin ) - Islamic Azad University Tehran Medical Sciences Faculty of Dentistry

Abstract


Background: The stability of the results remains a significant concern in orthognathic surgeries. This study aimed to assess the amount of relapse following mandibular advancement with/without maxillomandibular fixation (MMF).

Materials and methods: A single-blind clinical trial was conducted on patients with mandibular retrognathism who underwent BSSO for mandibular advancement and Lefort I maxillary superior repositioning. Patients were randomly divided into two groups of treatment (MMF) and control (no MMF). In the treatment group, MMF was performed for 2 weeks; meanwhile, MMF was not performed in the control group, and only guiding elastics were applied postoperatively. Lateral cephalograms were obtained preoperatively (T1), immediately after surgery (T2), and at 1 year postoperatively (T3). The distance from points A and B to the X and Y plane were measured to identify the amount of vertical and horizontal relapse in 1 year as a primary outcome. An independent t-test was applied in order to find differences in outcomes between the control and treatment groups.

Results: Fifty-eight patients were evaluated in two groups (28 patients in the MMF group and 30 in the no-MMF group). The magnitude of mandibular advancement following BSSO was 7.68¡¾1.39 mm and 7.53¡¾1.28, respectively, without significant difference among the groups (p= 0.68). The mean sagittal and vertical changes (relapse) at point B were significantly different between the two groups at 1-year follow-up after the osteotomy (p=0.001 and p=0.05, respectively).

Conclusion: According to the results of this study, patients with short-term MMF following BSSO for mandibular advancement benefit from significantly greater skeletal stability in the sagittal and vertical dimensions.

Å°¿öµå

Orthognathic surgery; Skeletal class II malocclusion; Bilateral sagittal split osteotomy

¿ø¹® ¹× ¸µÅ©¾Æ¿ô Á¤º¸

 

µîÀçÀú³Î Á¤º¸

KCI
KoreaMed