4.6 Article

Computed tomography evaluation of risk factors for an undesirable buccal split during sagittal split ramus osteotomy

Journal

PLOS ONE
Volume 18, Issue 3, Pages -

Publisher

PUBLIC LIBRARY SCIENCE
DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0279850

Keywords

-

Ask authors/readers for more resources

We investigated the risk factors for bad splits in the buccal plate of the ramus during sagittal split ramus osteotomy (SSRO) and found that a thinner width of the ramus towards the back often induces bad splits in the buccal plate. Patients with a bad split had a thicker distal region and smaller curve of the lateral region of the cortical bone compared to those with a successful split. These findings suggest that attention should be paid to patients with a ramus shape that becomes thinner towards the back during future SSRO surgeries.
Sagittal split ramus osteotomy (SSRO) sometimes induces an irregular split pattern referred to as a bad split. We investigated the risk factors for bad splits in the buccal plate of the ramus during SSRO. Ramus morphology and bad splits in the buccal plate of the ramus were assessed using preoperative and postoperative computed tomography images. Of the 53 rami analyzed, 45 had a successful split, and 8 had a bad split in the buccal plate. Horizontal images at the height of the mandibular foramen showed that there were significant differences in the ratio of the forward thickness to the backward thickness of the ramus between patients with a successful split and those with a bad split. In addition, the distal region of the cortical bone tended to be thicker and the curve of the lateral region of the cortical bone tended to be smaller in the bad split group than in the good split group. These results indicated that a ramus shape in which the width becomes thinner towards the back frequently induces bad splits in the buccal plate of the ramus during SSRO, and more attention should be paid to patients who have rami of these shapes in future surgeries.

Authors

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

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.6
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available