WORLD JOURNAL OF PLASTIC SURGERY
Fri, Aug 29, 2025
[Archive]
Volume 14, Issue 2 (2025)
WJPS 2025, 14(2): 33-45 |
Back to browse issues page
Download citation:
BibTeX | RIS | EndNote | Medlars | ProCite | Reference Manager | RefWorks
Send citation to:
BibTeX | RIS | EndNote | Medlars | ProCite | Reference Manager | RefWorks
Send citation to:
khajehahmadi S, Shams A, Tahami H, Rahpeyma A. Qualitative Comparison of Stress Distribution of Different Fixation Techniques of Sagittal Split Ramus Osteotomy (SSRO) in Mandibular Setback Surgery in Asymmetric Cases Using Three-Dimensional Finite Element Analysis (FEA). WJPS 2025; 14 (2) :33-45
URL: http://wjps.ir/article-1-1402-en.html
URL: http://wjps.ir/article-1-1402-en.html
1- Department of Oral and Maxillofacial Pathology, School of Dentistry, Mashhad University of Medical Sciences, Mashhad, Iran
2- Oral & Maxillofacial Diseases Research Center, Mashhad University of Medical Sciences, Mashhad, Iran ,ShamsA@mums.ac.ir
3- Student Research Committee, Mashhad University of Medical Science, Mashhad, Iran
2- Oral & Maxillofacial Diseases Research Center, Mashhad University of Medical Sciences, Mashhad, Iran ,
3- Student Research Committee, Mashhad University of Medical Science, Mashhad, Iran
Abstract: (1007 Views)
Background: Bilateral sagittal split osteotomy (BSSO) is the most common procedure in orthognathic Surgey of mandible also in asymmetries. However, the methods of fixation are different. Few studies worked on asymmetric cases especially with the use of finite element analysis (FEA). We aimed to evaluate stress distribution of two different Fixation techniques in mandibular setback surgery in asymmetric cases using FEA.
Methods: A 3-dimensional model of asymmetric mandible was obtained. SSRO with modified osteotomy was simulated unilaterally and another side osteotomized as common .Then differential set back was done and rigid fixation of that modified side with miniplate and monocortical screws was simulated then rigid fixation of other side by different fixation technics include 2 or 3 bicortical screws. With the force of 132N and 300N on the occlusal surface of first molars, the Von Mises Stress (VMS) distribution was calculated.
Results: Stress distribution in threads of screws in use of three bicortical screws was higher than two bicortical screws (161%). VMS distribution in spongy bone of left ramus in use of three bicortical screws was higher than the use of two bicortical screws (78% difference). VMS distribution in cortical bone of mandible body in use of three bicortical screws was significantly higher than the use of two bicortical screws (1.3% difference) (P<0.5).
Conclusion: The use of modified osteotomy and fixation with rigid fixation of two bicortical screws can create a more predictable and uniform stress distribution in mandibular setback surgery in asymmetric cases.
Methods: A 3-dimensional model of asymmetric mandible was obtained. SSRO with modified osteotomy was simulated unilaterally and another side osteotomized as common .Then differential set back was done and rigid fixation of that modified side with miniplate and monocortical screws was simulated then rigid fixation of other side by different fixation technics include 2 or 3 bicortical screws. With the force of 132N and 300N on the occlusal surface of first molars, the Von Mises Stress (VMS) distribution was calculated.
Results: Stress distribution in threads of screws in use of three bicortical screws was higher than two bicortical screws (161%). VMS distribution in spongy bone of left ramus in use of three bicortical screws was higher than the use of two bicortical screws (78% difference). VMS distribution in cortical bone of mandible body in use of three bicortical screws was significantly higher than the use of two bicortical screws (1.3% difference) (P<0.5).
Conclusion: The use of modified osteotomy and fixation with rigid fixation of two bicortical screws can create a more predictable and uniform stress distribution in mandibular setback surgery in asymmetric cases.
Keywords: Sagittal split ramus osteotomy (SSRO), Asymmetry, Fixation techniques, Mandibular setback surgery, Finite element analysis (FEA)
References
1. 1. Naini FB. Historical evolution of orthognathic surgery. In: Naini F, Gill D, editors. Orthognathic surgery: principles, planning and practice 2016. pp. 23-82. [DOI:10.1002/9781119004370.ch2]
2. Xia L, Jiang W, Yao K, Wei S, Yu W, Lu X. Evaluation of treatment with unilateral mandibular sagittal split ramus osteotomy and maxillary osteotomy in patients with condylar osteochondroma and mandibular asymmetry: A retrospective case series. J Craniomaxillofac Surg 2023;51(2):123-9. doi: 10.1016/j.jcms.2023.01.007. [DOI:10.1016/j.jcms.2023.01.007]
3. Ohba S, Nakao N, Kawasaki T, Miura KI, Minamizato T, Koga Y, et al. Skeletal stability after sagittal split ramus osteotomy with physiological positioning in patients with skeletal mandibular prognathism and facial asymmetry. Br J Oral Maxillofac Surg 2016;54(8):920-6. doi: 10.1016/j.bjoms.2016.06.010. [DOI:10.1016/j.bjoms.2016.06.010]
4. Kim Y-K. Complications associated with orthognathic surgery. J Korean Assoc Oral Maxillofac Surg 2017;43(1):3-15. doi: 10.1016/j.jcms.2019.11.012. [DOI:10.1016/j.jcms.2019.11.012]
5. Tashima A, Mackay DR. Orthognathic Surgery. Tips & Tricks Plastic Surg 2022:487-509. doi: [DOI:10.1007/978-3-030-78028-9_29]
6. Lee U-L, Kwon J-S, Woo S-H, Choi Y-J. Simultaneous bimaxillary surgery and mandibular reconstruction with a 3-dimensional printed titanium implant fabricated by electron beam melting: a preliminary mechanical testing of the printed mandible. J Oral Maxillofac Surg 2016;74(7):1501. e1-. e15. doi: 10.1016/j.joms.2016.02.031 [DOI:10.1016/j.joms.2016.02.031]
7. Bai Y, Tang Y, Ren M, Wang M, Zhao W, Zeng T, et al. Orofacial myofunctional changes in skeletal Class III patients after bimaxillary orthognathic surgery. J Plast Reconstr Aesthet Surg 2022;75(9):3526-33. doi: 10.1016/j.bjps.2022.04.102 [DOI:10.1016/j.bjps.2022.04.102]
8. Pippi R. Post-surgical clinical monitoring of soft tissue wound healing in periodontal and implant surgery. Int J Med Sci 2017;14(8):721. doi: 10.7150/ijms.19727. [DOI:10.7150/ijms.19727]
9. Iyer J, Hariharan A, Cao UMN, Tran SD. Acquired facial, maxillofacial, and oral asymmetries-a review highlighting diagnosis and management. Symmetry 2021;13(9):1661. doi: 10.1080/03602559.2014.979507. [DOI:10.1080/03602559.2014.979507]
10. Kobus K, Kobus-Zaleśna K. The treatment of facial asymmetry. Adv Clin Exp Med 2017;26(8):1301-11. doi: 10.17219/acem/68976. [DOI:10.17219/acem/68976]
11. Limongelli L, Inchingolo F, Bordea R, Lucchina AG. Management of anterior open-bite in the deciduous, mixed and permanent dentition stage: A descriptive review. J Biol Regul Homeost Agents 2021;35(2):271-8. doi: 10.23812/21-2supp1-27. [DOI:10.23812/21-2supp1-27]
12. Kim JW, Son WS, Kim SS, Kim YI. Proximal Segment Changes After Bilateral Sagittal Split Ramus Osteotomy in Facial Asymmetry Patients. J Oral Maxillofac Surg 2015;73(8):1592-605. doi: 10.1016/j.joms.2015.02.021. [DOI:10.1016/j.joms.2015.02.021]
13. Ellis E, 3rd. A method to passively align the sagittal ramus osteotomy segments. J Oral Maxillofac Surg 2007;65(10):2125-30. doi: 10.1016/j.joms.2007.02.005. [DOI:10.1016/j.joms.2007.02.005]
14. Oh J-S, Kim S-G. In vitro biomechanical evaluation of fixation methods of sagittal split ramus osteotomy in mandibular setback. J Craniomaxillofac Surg 2015;43(2):186-91. doi: 10.1016/j.jcms.2014.10.023. [DOI:10.1016/j.jcms.2014.10.023]
15. Raposo R, Peleteiro B, Paço M, Pinho T. Orthodontic camouflage versus orthodontic-orthognathic surgical treatment in class II malocclusion: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Int J Oral Maxillofac Surg 2018;47(4):445-55. doi: Orthodontic camouflage versus orthodontic-orthognathic surgical treatment in class II malocclusion: a systematic review and meta-analysis. [DOI:10.1016/j.ijom.2017.09.003]
16. Lipko-Godlewska S, Bolanča Ž, Kalinová L, Kermen I, Onisak B, Papp I, et al. Whole-face approach with hyaluronic acid fillers. Clin Cosmet Investig Dermatol 2021;14:169-78. doi: 10.2147/CCID.S292501. [DOI:10.2147/CCID.S292501]
17. Davachi SM, Kaffashi B. Polylactic acid in medicine. Polym Plast Technol Eng 2015;54(9):944-67. doi: [DOI:10.1080/03602559.2014.979507]
18. Scott H, Marti J, Witte P. Fracture fixation methods: principles and techniques. Feline Orthopaedics: CRC Press; 2022. pp. 61-87. [DOI:10.1201/9780429091537-6]
19. Snyder E. Patient-Specific Finite Element Analysis for Mandibular Fracture Fixation: University of Nevada, Las Vegas; 2021.
20. Arunchander G. Evaluation of variables affecting distribution of stresses in orthodontic miniscrews and in surrounding cortical/cancellous bone: A Three Dimensional Finite Element Analysis: Tamilnadu Government Dental College and Hospital, Chennai; 2015.
21. Lee JY, Lee JW, Pang KM, Kim HE, Kim SM, Lee JH. Biomechanical evaluation of magnesium-based resorbable metallic screw system in a bilateral sagittal split ramus osteotomy model using three-dimensional finite element analysis. J Oral Maxillofac Surg 2014;72(2):402.e1-13. doi: 10.1016/j.joms.2013.10.003. [DOI:10.1016/j.joms.2013.10.003]
22. Yoshida K, Rivera RS, Kaneko M, Kurita K. Minimizing displacement of the proximal segment after bilateral sagittal split ramus osteotomy in asymmetric cases. J Oral Maxillofac Surg 2001;59(1):15-8. doi: 10.1053/joms.2001.19264. [DOI:10.1053/joms.2001.19264]
23. Harada K, Watanabe M, Ohkura K, Enomoto S. Measure of bite force and occlusal contact area before and after bilateral sagittal split ramus osteotomy of the mandible using a new pressure-sensitive device: a preliminary report. J Oral Maxillofac Surg 2000;58(4):370-3; discussion 3-4. doi: 10.1016/s0278-2391(00)90913-3. [DOI:10.1016/S0278-2391(00)90913-3]
24. Umalkar SS, Jadhav VV, Paul P, Reche A. Modern Anchorage Systems in Orthodontics. Cureus 2022;14(11):e31476. doi: 10.7759/cureus.31476. [DOI:10.7759/cureus.31476]
25. Cornelius CP, Ehrenfeld M. The Use of MMF Screws: Surgical Technique, Indications, Contraindications, and Common Problems in Review of the Literature. Craniomaxillofac Trauma Reconstr 2010;3(2):55-80. doi: 10.1055/s-0030-1254376. [DOI:10.1055/s-0030-1254376]
26. Chrcanovic BR. Fixation of mandibular angle fractures: in vitro biomechanical assessments and computer-based studies. Oral Maxillofac Surg 2013;17(4):251-68. doi: 10.1007/s10006-012-0367-0. [DOI:10.1007/s10006-012-0367-0]
27. Hassan MK, Ring M, Stassen LF. A finite element analysis study comparing 3 internal fixation techniques in mandibular sagittal split osteotomy. Int J Otorhinolaryngol Head Neck Surg 2018;7(5):298-311. doi: 10.4236/ijohns.2018.75030. [DOI:10.4236/ijohns.2018.75030]
28. Sakarat N, Prapapongpan P, Sae-Lim S, Saleepochn T, Kongkathip B, Kongkathip N, et al. A quick and convenient 1H quantitative NMR method for determination of bioactive pyranocoumarins from Clausena excavata. Phytochemistry Letters 2021;45:126-31. doi: 10.1016/j.phytol.2021.08.011. [DOI:10.1016/j.phytol.2021.08.011]
Send email to the article author
| Rights and permissions | |
 |
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial 4.0 International License. |
