Condylar position following mandibular advancement: Its relationship to relapse

Will, Leslie A.; Joondeph, Donarld R.; Hohl, Thomas H.; West, Roger A.

doi:10.1016/0278-2391(84)90088-0

Cited by 162 publications

(38 citation statements)

References 17 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…The condyles rotated transversally with mandibular advancement as the proximal and distal surgical segments were repositioned with surgery. These findings corroborate those of studies that used submentovertex radiography 25,26 and cross-sectional slices with computed tomography. 4,27,30 Changes in all planes have been described, with reported variability in condylar orientation changes (1° to 18°) and changes in intercondylar distance (−5 to +4 mm).…”

Section: Discussionsupporting

confidence: 88%

“…4,27,30 Changes in all planes have been described, with reported variability in condylar orientation changes (1° to 18°) and changes in intercondylar distance (−5 to +4 mm). 4,[25][26][27][28][29][30] The literature supports our findings that small condylar rotations do not appear to have a functional compromise, and rotation apparently tends to reduce with time because of the remodeling process. 1,4,[25][26][27][28][29][30][31][32] The hierarchy of stability for current orthognathic surgical procedures has been determined based on lateral cephalograms from the UNC dentofacial program database.…”

Section: Discussionsupporting

confidence: 83%

“…4,[25][26][27][28][29][30] The literature supports our findings that small condylar rotations do not appear to have a functional compromise, and rotation apparently tends to reduce with time because of the remodeling process. 1,4,[25][26][27][28][29][30][31][32] The hierarchy of stability for current orthognathic surgical procedures has been determined based on lateral cephalograms from the UNC dentofacial program database. 1,2,33 Those assessments indicate that mandibular advancement up to about 10 mm is highly stable in patients with a normal or short face, with approximately 10% of the patients having clinically detectable post-treatment changes (2 mm or more) at 1 year postsurgery.…”

Section: Discussionsupporting

confidence: 83%

See 2 more Smart Citations

Three-dimensional assessment of mandibular advancement 1 year after surgery

Carvalho

Cevidanes

Motta

et al. 2010

American Journal of Orthodontics and Dentofacial Orthopedics

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

Section: Discussionsupporting

confidence: 88%

Section: Discussionsupporting

confidence: 83%

Section: Discussionsupporting

confidence: 83%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Three-dimensional assessment of mandibular advancement 1 year after surgery

Carvalho

Cevidanes

Motta

et al. 2010

American Journal of Orthodontics and Dentofacial Orthopedics

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Will et al (1984) similarly found that both condyles were positioned posteriorly in 41 patients who underwent SSRO to advance the mandible. However, in their study of 15 patients, Hackney et al (1989) found no correlation between the amount of mandibular advancement and changes in condylar position or mandibular shape.…”

Section: Fang Et Al (2009) Also Reported That There Was No Significamentioning

confidence: 78%

Changes in temporomandibular joint and ramus after sagittal split ramus osteotomy in mandibular prognathism patients with and without asymmetry

Ueki¹,

Moroi²,

Sotobori³

et al. 2012

Journal of Cranio-Maxillofacial Surgery

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The purpose of this study was to examine the changes in the temporomandibular joint (TMJ) and ramus after sagittal split ramus osteotomy (SSRO) with and without Le Fort I osteotomy.The subjects consisted of 87 Japanese patients diagnosed with mandibular prognathism with and without asymmetry. They were divided into 2 groups (42 symmetric patients and 45 asymmetric patients). The TMJ disc tissue was assessed by magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) and the TMJ space, condylar and ramus angle were assessed by computed tomography (CT) preoperatively and postoperatively.Medial joint space on the deviation side in the asymmetry group was significantly larger than that in the symmetry group (P=0.0043), and coronal ramus angle on the non-deviation side in the asymmetry group was significantly larger than that in the symmetry group preoperatively (P=0.0240). The horizontal condylar angle on the deviation side in the asymmetry group was significantly larger than that in the symmetry group (P=0.0302), posterior joint space on the non-deviation side in the symmetry group was significantly larger than that in the asymmetry group postoperatively (P=0.00391).The postoperative anterior joint space was significantly larger than the preoperative value on both sides in both groups (the deviation side in the symmetry group: P=0.0016, the non-deviation side in the symmetry group: P<0.0001, the deviation side in the asymmetry group: P=0.0040, the non-deviation side in the asymmetry group: P=0.0024). The preoperative disc position could was not changed in either group. These results suggest that significant expansion of anterior joint space could occur on the deviation side and non-deviation side in the asymmetry group as well as on both sides in the symmetry group, although disc position did not change in either group.

show abstract

“…Freihofer and Petresevic, 14 in a radiographic study of 38 patients who underwent SSRO for mandibular advancement, showed that 10 of 26 condyles appeared to be positioned anteriorly in the glenoid fossa. Similarly, Will et al 15 found that both condyles were positioned posteriorly in 41 patients who underwent SSRO to advance the mandible. However, in their study of 15 patients, Hackney et al 16 found no correlation between the amount of mandibular advancement and changes in condylar position or mandibular shape.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 88%

Condylar and disc positions after sagittal split ramus osteotomy with and without Le Fort I osteotomy

Ueki¹,

Marukawa²,

Shimada³

et al. 2007

Oral Surgery, Oral Medicine, Oral Pathology, Oral Radiology, an

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Purpose. The purpose of this study is to examine the changes in temporomandibular joint (TMJ) morphology and clinical symptoms after sagittal split ramus osteotomy (SSRO) with and without a Le Fort I osteotomy. Subjects and Methods.Of 45 Japanese patients with mandibular prognathism, 23 underwent SSRO and 22 underwent SSRO in combination with a Le Fort I osteotomy. The TMJ symptoms and joint morphology, including disc tissue, were assessed preoperatively and postoperatively by magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) and axial cephalography.Results. There were significant differences between pre-and postoperative horizontal changes in the condylar long axis on the right side in the group undergoing SSRO (sagittal split ramus osteotomy) alone. However, there were no other significant differences in preand postoperative measurements in this group as compared with the group receiving SSRO plus Le Fort I osteotomy, and the preoperative disc position could not be changed in either group. Conclusion.These results suggest that SSRO, either with or without Le Fort I osteotomy, could not change the preoperative disc position or correct anterior disc displacement, although these procedures did improve the symptoms associated with TMJ dysfunction.

show abstract

Condylar position following mandibular advancement: Its relationship to relapse

Cited by 162 publications

References 17 publications

Three-dimensional assessment of mandibular advancement 1 year after surgery

Three-dimensional assessment of mandibular advancement 1 year after surgery

Changes in temporomandibular joint and ramus after sagittal split ramus osteotomy in mandibular prognathism patients with and without asymmetry

Condylar and disc positions after sagittal split ramus osteotomy with and without Le Fort I osteotomy

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About