Presence of impacted teeth as a determining factor of unfavorable splits in 1256 sagittal-split osteotomies

Precious, David S.; Lung, Kevin E.; Pynn, Bruce R.; Goodday, Reginald

doi:10.1016/s1079-2104(98)90057-9

Cited by 70 publications

(21 citation statements)

References 22 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…The suggestion of PRECIOUS et al 40 , that ''mandibular fractures may occur with greater frequency when the impacted third molar teeth have been removed at least 6 months before sagittal split osteotomy as compared with that when third molar teeth are removed concomitant with sagittal-split osteotomy'', seems to support our findings with regard to the results with buccal plate fractures. Our results are in line with those of MEHRA et al 31 .…”

Section: Satisfactionsupporting

confidence: 88%

Stabilisation of sagittal split advancement osteotomies with miniplates: a prospective, multicentre study with two-year follow-up

Borstlap

Stoelinga

Hoppenreijs

et al. 2004

International Journal of Oral and Maxillofacial Surgery

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Hof:Stabilisation of sagittal split advancement osteotomies with miniplates: a prospective, multicentre study with two-year follow-up Part I. Clinical parameters. Int.Abstract. The principal aim of this study was to assess the postoperative stability of bilateral sagittal split osteotomies (BSSO) using two miniplates. Part I reports on the clinical results including treatment characteristics, nerve functions, TMJ function, occlusional relapse and patient satisfaction.This prospective study evaluated a group of 222 patients who underwent a BSSO for mandibular advancement. The same treatment protocol was used at seven participating institutions at which the patients were treated. A stable occlusion without appreciable relapse was seen in 84% after 2 years of followup. A considerable minority (16%) had occlusal relapse. There were no clinical parameters that pointed towards a high risk for relapse except age. The mean operation age of the relapse group was 20.7 years (SD 6.7) and in the stable group 26.1 years (SD 8.2).The function of the inferior alveolar nerve 2 years postoperatively was reported to be normal in approximately 88% of the patients, while 94% had no complaints about nerve dysaesthesia.In approximately 56% of the patients with pre-existing TMJ-dysfunction these signs and symptoms had disappeared. Another group of patients, however, without TMJ-dysfunction preoperatively (22%) developed signs or symptoms of TMJ-dysfunction postoperatively.The sagittal split osteotomy fixed with miniplates appeared to be a relatively safe and reliable procedure giving rise to a high degree of patient satisfaction, despite the fact that some occlusal relapse was seen.

show abstract

Section: Satisfactionsupporting

confidence: 88%

Stabilisation of sagittal split advancement osteotomies with miniplates: a prospective, multicentre study with two-year follow-up

Borstlap

Stoelinga

Hoppenreijs

et al. 2004

International Journal of Oral and Maxillofacial Surgery

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Reyneke et al, 13 Precious et al 9 and Mehra et al 14 indicated an increased risk of an unfavourable split with unerupted third molar teeth. Previous studies have recommended the removal of unerupted lower third molar teeth at least 6 months prior to the surgical procedure.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Complications associated with the surgical technique when performing the sagittal split osteotomy are well documented in the literature, some of the most common being unfavourable fractures of either the distal or proximal segment, damage to the inferior alveolar nerve, failure of fixation and condylar sag. [6][7][8][9][10][11][12] Although the anatomy of the posterior part of the mandible lends itself to the surgical design, it has become evident that the specific anatomy of each individual mandibular ramus differs which may play a significant role in the ease of splitting the ramus. Various technical factors could influence the successful completion of the split and there are several important anatomical structures that should be considered when the split is performed.…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

Variations in the anatomical dimensions of the mandibular ramus and the presence of third molars: its effect on the sagittal split ramus osteotomy

Beukes

Reyneke

Becker

2013

International Journal of Oral and Maxillofacial Surgery

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The authors undertook a prospective study to evaluate the influence that the anatomical dimensions of the ramus of the mandible and the presence of lower third molar teeth may have on the sagittal split ramus osteotomy. The anatomical dimensions measured included the width of the anterior mandibular ramus, the height of the corpus posterior to the second mandibular molar and the antero-posterior anatomical position of the lingual. The influence that these dimensions of the mandible may have on the successful splitting of the mandibular ramus wasThe effect that the presence of wisdom teeth had on the difficulty of the procedure was also investigated. This study found that, unlike the presence of third molars, there was no single anatomical measurement that contributed to the level of difficulty of the sagittal split osteotomy. For descriptive purposes the authors proposes a classification of the four typical patterns of unfavourable splits.

show abstract

“…It reported no clinical influence of peri-operative third molar removal on the occurrence of a bad split (Kriwalsky et al, 2008). Others found no significant association between the presence of third molars and the occurrence of bad splits (Tuker, 1995;Precious et al, 1998;Doucet et al, 2012a;Verweij et al, 2014).…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 98%

“…Further, in terms of neurosensory disturbances following BSSRO, some papers have reported that extraction of the third molar did not precipitate any neurosensory disturbances in the lower lip after BSSRO (Mensink et al, 2012;Doucet et al, 2012b;Ueki et al, 2014a,b). Some authors have advocated third molar removal during BSSRO to avoid any additional surgical procedure and minimise unwanted post-surgical consequences (Precious et al, 1998;Precious, 2004). However, there has been no report on the skeletal stability of BSSRO performed with extraction of the third molar.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Comparison of skeletal stability after sagittal split ramus osteotomy with and without extraction of the third molar in patients with mandibular prognathism

Moroi

Yoshizawa

Iguchi

et al. 2015

Journal of Cranio-Maxillofacial Surgery

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Presence of impacted teeth as a determining factor of unfavorable splits in 1256 sagittal-split osteotomies

Cited by 70 publications

References 22 publications

Stabilisation of sagittal split advancement osteotomies with miniplates: a prospective, multicentre study with two-year follow-up

Stabilisation of sagittal split advancement osteotomies with miniplates: a prospective, multicentre study with two-year follow-up

Variations in the anatomical dimensions of the mandibular ramus and the presence of third molars: its effect on the sagittal split ramus osteotomy

Comparison of skeletal stability after sagittal split ramus osteotomy with and without extraction of the third molar in patients with mandibular prognathism

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About