Long-term changes in mandibular and facial widths after mandibular setback surgery using intraoral vertical ramus osteotomy

Choi, Yoon Jeong; Ha, Young Don; Lim, Hun Jun; Huh, Jong-Ki; Chung, Chooryung J.; Kim, Kyung Ho

doi:10.1016/j.ijom.2016.04.006

Cited by 15 publications

(9 citation statements)

References 24 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…It was observed that the increases in the level 3 bone, muscle, and facial plane widths were similar in SSRO, whereas the decreases in the level 3 bone, muscle, and facial plane widths were similar in IVRO. Our findings were similar to the report of Choi et al [20]. The change in the Or-face angle in SSRO was small, whereas it was significantly decreased in IVRO.…”

Section: Discussionsupporting

confidence: 92%

“…However, Yeo et al [19] showed that intergonial width decreased 2.59 mm after mandibular setback by SSRO. Choi et al [20] investigated long-term changes in mandibular and facial widths after mandibular setback surgery using IVRO. They found that frontal mandibular width increased after IVRO but seemed to normalize within approximately 3 years.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Choi et al [20] reported that frontal facial width did not reflect underlying skeletal changes after IVRO. Upon evaluating the frontal facial plane, no significant change existed for any of the four levels with SSRO or IVRO, which signifies that there was no significant increase in frontal facial width following significant frontal bone changes in SSRO and IVRO.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 2 more Smart Citations

Comparisons of Jaw Line and Face Line after Mandibular Setback: Intraoral Vertical Ramus versus Sagittal Split Ramus Osteotomies

Chen

Tseng

et al. 2018

BioMed Research International

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Background This study investigates the differences in the lateral profile and frontal appearance after sagittal split ramus osteotomy (SSRO) and intraoral vertical ramus osteotomy (IVRO) procedures for the correction of mandibular prognathism. Methods Sixty patients (30 SSRO and 30 IVRO) underwent mandibular setback surgery. Serial cephalograms were obtained: (1) T1: approximately 1 month before surgery; (2) T2: at least 6 months after surgery for SSRO and at least 1 year after surgery for IVRO. The landmarks, linear distances, and related angles were measured. The t-test was applied to the intragroup and intergroup comparisons. The null hypothesis was that SSRO and IVRO made no difference in the facial appearance. Results In the IVRO group, the ramus and gonial widths significantly decreased by 3.9 mm and 5.8 mm, respectively. SSRO significantly reduced the gonial angle by 2.6°, and IVRO increased it significantly by 5.3°. The postoperative increases at frontal bone levels 0 and 1 after IVRO were significantly larger than those after SSRO, but, at level 3, the increases after SSRO were larger than those after IVRO. In the frontal muscular and facial planes, SSRO and IVRO presented no difference. The frontal jaw angle and face angle were significantly larger with IVRO than with SSRO. Therefore, the null hypothesis was rejected. Conclusions The ramus width and gonial width were significantly decreased in IVRO compared to SSRO. IVRO increased angles in the lateral profile (gonial angle and mandibular plane angle) and frontal appearance (jaw angle and face angle) more than SSRO did.

show abstract

Section: Discussionsupporting

confidence: 92%

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Comparisons of Jaw Line and Face Line after Mandibular Setback: Intraoral Vertical Ramus versus Sagittal Split Ramus Osteotomies

Chen

Tseng

et al. 2018

BioMed Research International

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…However, ramus height did not show a signi cant change 1 year after surgery, resulting in patients having a smoother pro le. This is consistent with a report that found that frontal mandibular width increased after IVRO but seemed to normalize within approximately 3 years [9]. Post-IVRO protrusion of the mandibular angle due to protrusion of the proximal segment is considered a major problem associated with IVRO.…”

Section: Discussionsupporting

confidence: 92%

Three-dimensional Analysis of Mandible Ramus Morphology and Transverse Stability After Intraoral Vertical Ramus Osteotomy

Hui

Tang

Jing

et al. 2021

Preprint

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Objectives: The purpose of this study was to investigate short- and long-term postoperative changes of both morphology and transverse stability in mandibular ramus after intraoral vertical ramus osteotomy (IVRO) in patients with jaw deformity using three-dimensional (3D) orthognathic surgery planning treatment software for measurement of distances and angles.Study Design: This retrospective study included consecutive patients with skeletal Class III malocclusion who had undergone intraoral vertical ramus osteotomy and computed tomography images before (T0), immediately after (T1), and one year after (T2) surgery. Reference points, reference lines and evaluation items were designated on the reconstructed 3D surface models to measure distances, angles and volume. The average values at T0, T1, T2 and time-dependent changes in variables were obtained.Results: After surgery, the condylar length, ramal height, mandibular body length and mandibular ramus volume were significantly decreased (P < .01), while clinically insignificant change was observed from T1 to T2. The angular length was increased immediately after surgery (P < .05), but it was decreased 1 year after surgery (P < .05). Lateral ramal inclination showed significant increase after surgery (P < .05) and maintained at T2.Conclusion: Changes in the morphology of the mandibular ramus caused by IVRO do not obviously bring negative effect on facial appearance. Furthermore, despite position and angle of mandibular ramus changed after IVRO, good transverse stability was observed postoperatively. Therefore, IVRO technique can be safely used without compromising esthetic results.

show abstract

“…They concluded that the mandibular width increases after this type of surgery but returns to normal after around 3 years. Asskeletal changes in the facial inferior width are not affected, therefore, long-term transverse changes are not significant in this osteotomy technique[17].…”

mentioning

confidence: 85%

Changes of Transverse Mandibular Width in Set-Back Mandibular Surgery: Sagittal Split versus Intraoral Verticosagittal Osteotomy

Razmara¹,

Mahmoodhashemi²,

Zahraei³

et al. 2018

IJCM

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Aim: This study was performed to evaluate the movement of the proximal segment following different methods of ramus osteotomy that is one of the side effects of orthognathic surgery. Theoretically, with intraoral verticosagittal ramus osteotomy, it can minimize the movement of the proximal segment. The changes in the intergonal distance of mandible and the angle of the ramus flaring in two methods of osteotomy have been compared in this study. Materials and Methods: In this randomized clinical trial, included 60 patients (32 males) with mandibular prognathism and without any asymmetry were selected and divided into two groups (n = 30). One group underwent bilateral sagittal split ramus osteotomy technique to achieve mandibular setback and the other by the intraoral verticosagittal ramus osteotomy technique. Intergonial width and inner-ramal angle in the transverse plane were measured on radiographs preoperatively and 1 and 12 weeks postoperatively. Data were analyzed using covariance test with the significance level set at P < 0.05. Results: Changes of intergonial width and inter-ramal angle was significant in both the 1 and 12-week radiographies taken post-operative in both groups. But no statistically significant difference was observed in the intergonial width and ramus flaring at the mentioned time points between the two groups (P > 0.1). Conclusion: Considering our findings, there was no significant difference between two ramus osteotomy techniques regarding changes in mandibular width and inter-ramal flaring angle.

show abstract

Long-term changes in mandibular and facial widths after mandibular setback surgery using intraoral vertical ramus osteotomy

Cited by 15 publications

References 24 publications

Comparisons of Jaw Line and Face Line after Mandibular Setback: Intraoral Vertical Ramus versus Sagittal Split Ramus Osteotomies

Comparisons of Jaw Line and Face Line after Mandibular Setback: Intraoral Vertical Ramus versus Sagittal Split Ramus Osteotomies

Three-dimensional Analysis of Mandible Ramus Morphology and Transverse Stability After Intraoral Vertical Ramus Osteotomy

Changes of Transverse Mandibular Width in Set-Back Mandibular Surgery: Sagittal Split versus Intraoral Verticosagittal Osteotomy

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About