4.1 Article

Risk factors for bad splits during sagittal split ramus osteotomy: a retrospective study of 964 cases

Journal

BRITISH JOURNAL OF ORAL & MAXILLOFACIAL SURGERY
Volume 59, Issue 6, Pages 678-682

Publisher

CHURCHILL LIVINGSTONE
DOI: 10.1016/j.bjoms.2020.08.107

Keywords

Bad split; Risk factor; Orthognathic surgery; Mandibular fracture; Intraoperative complications

Funding

  1. National Natural Science Foundation of China [81771097, 81901026]
  2. Department of Science and Technologyof Sichuan Province [2019YJ0103]

Ask authors/readers for more resources

The study discovered that SSRO patients with narrower distances from the mandibular canal to the buccal cortex were more prone to bad splits, highlighting the importance of paying attention to this risk factor during surgeries.
To identify the potential risk factors for bad splits, we calculated the incidence of bad splits from 484 patients with 964 cases of sagittal split ramus osteotomy (SSRO) and investigated the association between the occurrence of bad splits and risk factors such as gender, patients' age, class of occlusion, unimaxillary or bimaxillary surgery, presence of the lower third molar, thickness of the ascending ramus, and the distance from the mandibular canal to the buccal cortical bone. The results showed that 40 sides (4.149%) with bad splits occurred in 36 patients (7.438%). The mean (SD) gap width from the canal to the buccal cortex for the bad split group, at 4.02 (1.20) mm, was narrower (p = 0.003; OR = 0.689; 95% CI = 0.538 to 0.882) than the normal split group 4.80 (1.72) mm. On the contrary, no statistical significance (p > 0.05) was detected between the patients with bad splits and those with normal splits for the other factors. In conclusion, SSRO patients with narrower distances from the mandibular canal to the buccal cortex were more prone to bad splits. More attention should be paid to patients with this risk factor during future surgeries. (c) 2020 The British Association of Oral and Maxillofacial Surgeons. Published by Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.1
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available