The Direction of Double-Jaw Surgery Relapse for Correction of Skeletal Class III Deformity: Bilateral Sagittal Split Versus Intraoral Vertical Ramus Setback Osteotomies
- 44 Downloads
This prospective comparative clinical trial study aims to investigate the postoperative stability of the double-jaw surgical treatment of skeletal Class III deformity and to compare two different mandibular surgical approaches. The study goal is to locate the relapsing direction of both the maxilla and the distal segment after either bilateral sagittal split ramus osteotomy (BSSO), or intraoral vertical ramus osteotomy (IVRO).
Twenty-two (22) patients with skeletal Class III were included in this study. The patients were treated with double-jaw surgery by LeFort I osteotomy combined with either BSSO or IVRO. Lateral cephalograms taken before (T0), immediately after (T1), and 1 year after the surgery (T2) were studied and analyzed.
The mean mandibular setback and maxillary advancement in the BSSO group were 6.22 mm at B Point and 2.93 mm at A point with relapse percentages of 24.9 and 26.6%, respectively, while the mean mandibular setback and maxillary advancement in the IVRO group were 2.55 mm at B point and 5.89 mm at A point with relapse percentages of 22.1 and 23.5%, respectively. The magnitude of the setback significantly accounted for the relapse.
One-year follow-up revealed that the maxilla would be displaced posteriorly and inferiorly in both groups. Regarding the direction of the mandibular relapse, the mandible in BSSO surgical group was displaced forward and upward, while in IVRO surgical group, the directions were completely different in which the mandible is displaced backward and downward.
KeywordsClass III Orthognathic surgery Relapse Bilateral sagittal split osteotomy (BSSO) Intraoral vertical osteotomy (IVRO)
RA, AA, FA, and MA designed and performed the study, carried out the literature research and manuscript preparation. RA, AA, FA, MA, AF, TA, PV, SAl, ZAl, SE, AY, and LA were responsible for critical revision of scientific content and manuscript review. All authors approved the final version of the manuscript.
Compliance with Ethical Standards
Conflict of interest
The authors declare that they have no conflict of interest.
- 4.Bailey LT, Proffit WR, White RP Jr (1995) Trends in surgical treatment of Class III skeletal relationships. Int J Adult Orthodon Orthognath Surg 10:108–118Google Scholar
- 5.Bell WH, Yamaguchi Y (1991) Condyle position and mobility before and after intraoral vertical ramus osteotomies and neuromuscular rehabilitation. Int J Adult Orthodon Orthognath Surg 6:97–104Google Scholar
- 13.Hall D (1980) Intraoral vertical ramus osteotomy. In: Bell WH (ed) Surgical correction of dentofacial deformities, vol 2. Saunders, Philadelphia, pp 890–895Google Scholar
- 16.Mohajerani H, Mehdizadeh M, Khalighi A (2009) Skeletal relapse after correction of mandibular prognathism by bilateral sagittal split ramus osteotomy. J Dent 6(3):139–144Google Scholar
- 21.Talesh KT, Motamedi MH, Sazavar M, Yazdani J (2010) Assessment of relapse following intraoral vertical ramus osteotomy mandibular setback and short-term immobilization. Eplasty pii:e54Google Scholar