Volume 12, Issue 1 (2023)                   WJPS 2023, 12(1): 43-57 | Back to browse issues page


XML Print


Download citation:
BibTeX | RIS | EndNote | Medlars | ProCite | Reference Manager | RefWorks
Send citation to:

Eshghpour M, Samieirad S, Shooshtari Z, Shams A, Ghadirimoghaddam N. Three Different Fixation Modalities following Mandibular Setback Surgery with Sagittal Split Ramus Osteotomy: A Comparative Study using Three-dimensional Finite Elements Analysis. WJPS 2023; 12 (1) :43-57
URL: http://wjps.ir/article-1-1006-en.html
1- Dental Research Center, Mashhad University of Medical Sciences, Mashhad, Iran
2- Oral and Maxillofacial Diseases Research Center, Mashhad University of Medical Sciences, Mashhad, Iran
3- Oral and Maxillofacial Surgery Department, Faculty of Dentistry, Mashhad University of Medical Sciences, Mashhad, Iran
4- Oral and Maxillofacial Surgery Department, Faculty of Dentistry, Mashhad University of Medical Sciences, Mashhad, Iran , Shamsa971@mums.ac.ir
Abstract:   (1707 Views)
Background: The provision of sufficient stability after maxillofacial surgery is essential for the reduction of complications and disease recurrence. The stabilization of osteotomized pieces results in rapid restoration of normal masticatory function, reduction of skeletal relapse, and uneventful healing at the osteotomy site. We aimed to compare qualitatively stress distribution patterns over a virtual mandible model after bilateral sagittal split osteotomy (BSSO) bridged with three different intraoral fixation techniques.
Methods: This study was conducted in the Oral and Maxillofacial Surgery Department of Mashhad School of Dentistry, Mashhad, Iran, from March 2021-March 2022.  The mandible computed tomography scan of a healthy adult was used to generate a 3D model; thereafter, BSSO with a 3mm setback was simulated. The three following fixation techniques were applied to the model: 1) two bicortical screws, 2) three bicortical screws, and 3) a miniplate. The bilateral second premolars and first molars were placed under mechanical loads of 75, 135, and 600N in order to simulate symmetric occlusal forces. Finite element analysis (FEA) was carried out in Ansys software, and the mechanical strain, stress, and displacement calculations were recorded.
Results: The FEA contours revealed that stress was mainly concentrated in the fixation units. Although bicortical screws presented better rigidity than miniplates, they were associated with higher stress and displacement readings.
Conclusion: Miniplate fixation demonstrated the most favorable biomechanical performance, followed by fixation with two and three bicortical screws, respectively. Intraoral fixation with miniplates in combination with monocortical screws can serve as an appropriate fixation arrangement and treatment option for skeletal stabilization after BSSO setback surgery.
 
Full-Text [PDF 1731 kb]   (1776 Downloads)    
Type of Study: Original Article | Subject: Special
ePublished: 2023/02/25

References
1. 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 (05): 298-305. doi:10.4236/ijohns.2018.75030. [DOI:10.4236/ijohns.2018.75030]
2. Ghorashi SM, Keshavarzi MM, Damercheli S, Parhiz A. The comparison of three different fixation methods on bilateral sagittal split ramus osteotomy mandibular on a 3D of fully modelled mandible by the finite element method. J Craniomaxillofac Surg 2019; 6 (3): 113-21. doi:10.18502/jcr.v6i3.3258. [DOI:10.18502/jcr.v6i3.3258]
3. Sukegawa S, Kanno T, Manabe Y, Matsumoto K, Sukegawa-Takahashi Y, Masui M, Furuki Y. Biomechanical Loading Evaluation of Unsintered Hydroxyapatite/poly-l-lactide Plate System in Bilateral Sagittal Split Ramus Osteotomy. Materials (Basel) 2017; 10(7):764. doi: 10.3390/ma10070764. [DOI:10.3390/ma10070764]
4. Stringhini DJ, Sommerfeld R, Uetanabaro LC, Leonardi DP, Araújo MR, Rebellato NL, et al. Resistance and Stress Finite Element Analysis of Different Types of Fixation for Mandibular Orthognathic Surgery. Braz Dent J 2016; 27 (3): 284-91. doi: 10.1590/0103-6440201600336. [DOI:10.1590/0103-6440201600336]
5. Chang LR, Chen CC, Jeng SF, Chen YR, Hwang LC, Lin TS. Investigation of a Modified Novel Technique in Bilateral Sagittal Splitting Osteotomy Fixation: Finite Element Analysis and In Vitro Biomechanical Test. Biomed Res Int 2020; 2020:8707389. doi: 10.1155/2020/8707389. [DOI:10.1155/2020/8707389]
6. Böckmann R, Meyns J, Dik E, Kessler P. The modifications of the sagittal ramus split osteotomy: a literature review. Plast Reconstr Surg Glob Open 2015; 2 (12): e271-e71. doi: 10.1097/GOX.0000000000000127. [DOI:10.1097/GOX.0000000000000127]
7. Monson LA. Bilateral sagittal split osteotomy. Semin Plast Surg 2013; 27 (3): 145-48. doi: 10.1055/s-0033-1357111. [DOI:10.1055/s-0033-1357111]
8. He P, Iwanaga J, Matsushita Y, Adeeb N, Topale N, Tubbs RS, et al. A Comparative Review of Mandibular Orthognathic Surgeries with a Focus on Intraoral Vertico-sagittal Ramus Osteotomy. Cureus 2017; 9 (12): e1924-e24. doi: 10.7759/cureus.1924. [DOI:10.7759/cureus.1924]
9. Jung H-D, Kim SY, Park H-S, Jung Y-S. Orthognathic surgery and temporomandibular joint symptoms. Maxillofac Plast Reconstr Surg 2015; 37 (1): 1-11. doi: 10.1186/s40902-015-0014-4. [DOI:10.1186/s40902-015-0014-4]
10. Islamoglu K, Coskunfirat OK, Tetik G, Ozgentas HE. Complications and removal rates of miniplates and screws used for maxillofacial fractures. Ann Plast Surg 2002; 48 (3): 265-68. doi: 10.1097/00000637-200203000-00006. [DOI:10.1097/00000637-200203000-00006]
11. Park H-C, Kim S-G, Oh J-S, You J-S, Kim W-G. Mini-plate removal in maxillofacial trauma patients during a five-year retrospective study. J Korean Assoc Oral Maxillofac Surg 2016; 42 (4): 182-86. doi: 10.5125/jkaoms.2016.42.4.182 [DOI:10.5125/jkaoms.2016.42.4.182]
12. Rallis G, Mourouzis C, Papakosta V, Papanastasiou G, Zachariades N. Reasons for miniplate removal following maxillofacial trauma: a 4-year study. J Craniomaxillofac Surg 2006; 34 (7): 435-39. doi: 10.1016/j.jcms.2006.07.001. [DOI:10.1016/j.jcms.2006.07.001]
13. Tamura N, Takaki T, Takano N, Shibahara T. Three-dimensional Finite Element Analysis of Bone Fixation in Bilateral Sagittal Split Ramus Osteotomy Using Individual Models. Bull Tokyo Dent Coll 2018; 59 (2): 67-78. doi: 10.2209/tdcpublication.2013-3000. [DOI:10.2209/tdcpublication.2013-3000]
14. Sato FRL, Asprino L, Noritomi PY, da Silva JVL, de Moraes M. Comparison of five different fixation techniques of sagittal split ramus osteotomy using three-dimensional finite elements analysis. Int J Oral Maxillofac Surg 2012; 41 (8): 934-41. doi: 10.1016/j.ijom.2012.03.018. [DOI:10.1016/j.ijom.2012.03.018]
15. Kuik K, Ho J, de Ruiter MHT, Klop C, Kleverlaan CJ, de Lange J, et al. Stability of fixation methods in large mandibular advancements after sagittal split ramus osteotomy: an in vitro biomechanical study. Br J Oral Maxillofac Surg 2021; 59 (4): 466-71.doi: 10.1016/j.bjoms.2020.09.008. [DOI:10.1016/j.bjoms.2020.09.008]
16. Park Y-W, Kang H-S, Lee J-H. Comparative study on long-term stability in mandibular sagittal split ramus osteotomy: hydroxyapatite/poly-l-lactide mesh versus titanium miniplate. Maxillofac Plast Reconstr Surg 2019; 41 (1): 8-17. doi: 10.1186/s40902-019-0192-6. [DOI:10.1186/s40902-019-0192-6]
17. Maurer P, Holweg S, Schubert J. Finite-element-analysis of different screw-diameters in the sagittal split osteotomy of the mandible. J Craniomaxillofac Surg 1999; 27 (6): 365-72. doi: 10.1054/jcms.1999.0069. [DOI:10.1054/jcms.1999.0069]
18. Chuong CJ, Borotikar B, Schwartz-Dabney C, Sinn DP. Mechanical characteristics of the mandible after bilateral sagittal split ramus osteotomy: comparing 2 different fixation techniques. J Oral Maxillofac Surg 2005; 63 (1): 68-76. doi: 10.1016/j.joms.2003.12.045. [DOI:10.1016/j.joms.2003.12.045]
19. Ming-Yih L, Chun-Li L, Wen-Da T, Lun-Jou L. Biomechanical stability analysis of rigid intraoral fixation for bilateral sagittal split osteotomy. J Plast Reconstr Aesthet Surg 2010; 63 (3): 451-5. doi: 10.1016/j.bjps.2008.11.057. [DOI:10.1016/j.bjps.2008.11.057]
20. Nihara J, Gielo-Perczak K, Cardinal L, Saito I, Nanda R, Uribe F. Finite element analysis of mandibular molar protraction mechanics using miniscrews. Eur J Orthod 2015; 37 (1): 95-100. Doi: 10.1093/ejo/cju017. [DOI:10.1093/ejo/cju017]
21. Mohammed MA, Mohamed KM. Three-dimensional stress analysis with two molar protraction techniques using Finite Element Modeling. J World Fed Orthod 2018; 7 (3): 89-93. Doi: 10.1016/j.ejwf.2018.07.004. [DOI:10.1016/j.ejwf.2018.07.004]
22. Strait DS, Wang Q, Dechow PC, Ross CF, Richmond BG, Spencer MA, et al. modeling elastic properties in finite-element analysis: how much precision is needed to produce an accurate model? Anat Rec A Discov Mol Cell Evol Biol 2005; 283 (2): 275-87. Doi: 10.1002/ar.a.20172. [DOI:10.1002/ar.a.20172]
23. Sarkarat F, Motamedi MH, Bohluli B, Moharamnejad N, Ansari S, Shahabi-Sirjani H. Analysis of stress distribution on fixation of bilateral sagittal split ramus osteotomy with resorbable plates and screws using the finite-element method. J Oral Maxillofac Surg 2012; 70 (6): 1434-8. Doi: 10.1016/j.joms.2011.05.017. [DOI:10.1016/j.joms.2011.05.017]
24. Albougha S, Darwich K, Darwich MA, Albogha MH. Assessment of sagittal split ramus osteotomy rigid internal fixation techniques using a finite element method. Int J Oral Maxillofac Surg 2015; 44 (7): 823-9. Doi: 10.1016/j.ijom.2015.02.006. [DOI:10.1016/j.ijom.2015.02.006]
25. Sindel A, Demiralp S, Colok G. Evaluation of different screw fixation techniques and screw diameters in sagittal split ramus osteotomy: finite element analysis method. J Oral Rehabil 2014; 41 (9): 683-91. Doi: 10.1111/joor.12188. [DOI:10.1111/joor.12188]
26. Hsu S. S. P., Huang C. S., Chen P. K. T., Ko E. W. C., Chen Y. R. The stability of mandibular prognathism corrected by bilateral sagittal split osteotomies: a comparison of bi-cortical osteosynthesis and mono-cortical osteosynthesis. International Journal of Oral and Maxillofacial Surgery 2012; 41(2):142-149. doi: 10.1016/j.ijom.2011.10.029. [DOI:10.1016/j.ijom.2011.10.029]
27. 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 73-4. Doi: 10.1016/s0278-2391(00)90913-3. [DOI:10.1016/S0278-2391(00)90913-3]
28. Oguz Y, Uckan S, Ozden AU, Uckan E, Eser A. Stability of locking and conventional 2.0-mm miniplate/screw systems after sagittal split ramus osteotomy: finite element analysis. Oral Surg Oral Med Oral Pathol Oral Radiol Endod 2009; 108 (2): 174-7. Doi: 10.1016/j.tripleo.2009.03.051. [DOI:10.1016/j.tripleo.2009.03.051]
29. Burm JS, Hansen JE. The use of microplates for internal fixation of mandibular fractures. Plast Reconstr Surg 2010; 125 (5): 1485-92. Doi: 10.1097/PRS.0b013e3181d51244. [DOI:10.1097/PRS.0b013e3181d51244]
30. Ahmed SS, Bhardwaj S, Ansari MK, Farooq O, Khan AA. Role of 1.5 mm microplates in treatment of symphyseal fracture of mandible: A stress analysis based comparative study. J Oral Biol Craniofac Res 2017; 7 (2): 119-22. Doi: 10.1016/j.jobcr.2017.03.009. [DOI:10.1016/j.jobcr.2017.03.009]
31. Yeo XH, Ayoub A, Lee C, Byrne N, Currie WRJ. Neurosensory deficit following mandibular sagittal split osteotomy: A comparative study between positional screws and miniplates fixation. Surgeon 2017; 15 (5): 278-81. Doi: 10.1016/j.surge.2016.07.001 [DOI:10.1016/j.surge.2016.07.001]
32. Welsch G, Boyer R, Collings EW, editors. Materials properties handbook: titanium alloys. ASM international; 1993.
33. Erkmen E, Simşek B, Yücel E, Kurt A. Comparison of different fixation methods following sagittal split ramus osteotomies using three-dimensional finite elements analysis. Part 1: advancement surgery-posterior loading. Int J Oral Maxillofac Surg 2005; 34 (5): 551-8. Doi: 10.1016/j.ijom.2004.10.009. [DOI:10.1016/j.ijom.2004.10.009]
34. Erkmen E, Simşek B, Yücel E, Kurt A. Three-dimensional finite element analysis used to compare methods of fixation after sagittal split ramus osteotomy: setback surgery-posterior loading. Br J Oral Maxillofac Surg 2005; 43 (2): 97-104. Doi: 10.1016/j.bjoms.2004.10.007. [DOI:10.1016/j.bjoms.2004.10.007]
35. Kröger H, Venesmaa P, Jurvelin J, Miettinen H, Suomalainen O, Alhava E. Bone density at the proximal femur after total hip arthroplasty. Clinical Orthopaedics and Related Research (1976-2007). 1998;352:66-74. [DOI:10.1097/00003086-199807000-00009]
36. Oguz Y, Watanabe ER, Reis JM, Spin-Neto R, Gabrielli MA, Pereira-Filho VA. In vitro biomechanical comparison of six different fixation methods following 5-mm sagittal split advancement osteotomies. Int J Oral Maxillofac Surg 2015; 44 (8): 984-8. Doi: 10.1016/j.ijom.2014.11.019. [DOI:10.1016/j.ijom.2014.11.019]
37. Peterson GP, Haug RH, Van Sickels J. A biomechanical evaluation of bilateral sagittal ramus osteotomy fixation techniques. J Oral Maxillofac Surg 2005; 63 (9): 1317-24. Doi: 10.1016/j.joms.2005.05.301. [DOI:10.1016/j.joms.2005.05.301]
38. Claes LE, Heigele CA, Neidlinger-Wilke C, Kaspar D, Seidl W, Margevicius KJ, et al. Effects of mechanical factors on the fracture healing process. Clin Orthop Relat Res 1998; (355 Suppl): S132-47. Doi: 10.1097/00003086-199810001-00015. [DOI:10.1097/00003086-199810001-00015]
39. Al-Moraissi EA, Ellis E. Stability of bicortical screw versus plate fixation after mandibular setback with the bilateral sagittal split osteotomy: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Int J Oral Maxillofac Surg 2016; 45 (1): 1-7. Doi: 10.1016/j.ijom.2015.09.017. [DOI:10.1016/j.ijom.2015.09.017]
40. Joss CU, Vassalli IM. Stability after bilateral sagittal split osteotomy advancement surgery with rigid internal fixation: a systematic review. J Oral Maxillofac Surg 2009; 67 (2): 301-13. Doi: 10.1016/j.joms.2008.06.060 [DOI:10.1016/j.joms.2008.06.060]

Add your comments about this article : Your username or Email:
CAPTCHA

Send email to the article author


Rights and permissions
Creative Commons License This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial 4.0 International License.

© 2024 CC BY-NC 4.0 | World Journal of Plastic Surgery

Designed & Developed by : Yektaweb