Mechanical evaluation of the use of conventional and locking miniplate/screw systems used in sagittal split ramus osteotomy

Objectives The aim of this study was to compare the mechanical resistance of four different osteosyntheses modeled in two different sagittal split ramus osteotomy (SSRO) designs and to determine the linear loading in a universal testing machine. Materials and Methods An in vitro experiment was conducted with 40 polyurethane hemimandibles. The samples were divided into two groups based on osteotomy design; Group I, right angles between osteotomies and Group II, no right angles between osteotomies. In each group, the hemimandibles were distributed into four subgroups according to the osteosynthesis method, using one 4-hole 2.0 mm conventional or locking plate, with or without one bicortical screw with a length of 12.0 mm (hybrid technique). Each subgroup contained five samples and was subjected to a linear loading test in a universal testing machine. Results The peak load and peak displacement were compared for statistical significance using PASW Statistics 18.0 (IBM Co., USA). In general, there was no difference between the peak load and peak displacement related to osteotomy design. However, when the subgroups were compared, the osteotomy without right angles offered higher mechanical resistance when one conventional or locking 2.0 mm plate was used. One locking plate with one bicortical screw showed higher mechanical resistance (162.72±42.55 N), and these results were statistically significantly compared to one conventional plate with monocortical screws (P=0.016) and one locking plate with monocortical screws (P=0.012). The difference in peak displacement was not statistically significant based on osteotomy design or internal fixation system configuration. Conclusion The placement of one bicortical screw in the distal region promoted better stabilization of SSRO. The osteotomy design did not influence the mechanical behavior of SSRO when the hybrid technique was applied.

[1]  P. Kessler,et al.  The Modifications of the Sagittal Ramus Split Osteotomy: A Literature Review , 2014, Plastic and reconstructive surgery. Global open.

[2]  J. D. de Albergaria-Barbosa,et al.  Photoelastic evaluation of two different sagittal split ramus osteotomies in advancement surgery. , 2014, International journal of clinical and experimental medicine.

[3]  M. de Moraes,et al.  Influence of the design in sagittal split ramus osteotomy on the mechanical behavior. , 2014, International journal of clinical and experimental medicine.

[4]  P. Noritomi,et al.  A comparative evaluation of the hybrid technique for fixation of the sagittal split ramus osteotomy in mandibular advancement by mechanical, photoelastic, and finite element analysis. , 2012, Oral surgery, oral medicine, oral pathology and oral radiology.

[5]  M. Papageorge,et al.  Which kind of miniplate to use in mandibular sagittal split osteotomy? An in vitro study. , 2011, International journal of oral and maxillofacial surgery.

[6]  K. Ueki,et al.  Position of mandibular canal and ramus morphology before and after sagittal split ramus osteotomy. , 2010, Journal of oral and maxillofacial surgery : official journal of the American Association of Oral and Maxillofacial Surgeons.

[7]  M. Papageorge,et al.  In vitro biomechanical evaluation of the use of conventional and locking miniplate/screw systems for sagittal split ramus osteotomy. , 2010, Journal of oral and maxillofacial surgery : official journal of the American Association of Oral and Maxillofacial Surgeons.

[8]  S. Uckan,et al.  Stability of locking and conventional 2.0-mm miniplate/screw systems after sagittal split ramus osteotomy: finite element analysis. , 2009, Oral surgery, oral medicine, oral pathology, oral radiology, and endodontics.

[9]  V. Ziccardi,et al.  Failure strength of 2.0 locking versus 2.0 conventional Synthes mandibular plates: A laboratory model. , 2006, Journal of oral and maxillofacial surgery : official journal of the American Association of Oral and Maxillofacial Surgeons.

[10]  R. Schmelzeisen,et al.  Principle and stability of locking plates. , 2003, The Keio journal of medicine.

[11]  H. Schwartz,et al.  Bicortical-monocortical fixation of the sagittal mandibular osteotomy. , 1996, Journal of oral and maxillofacial surgery : official journal of the American Association of Oral and Maxillofacial Surgeons.

[12]  R. Haug Effect of screw number on reconstruction plating. , 1993, Oral surgery, oral medicine, and oral pathology.

[13]  G. Nishioka,et al.  Modified sagittal split technique for patients with a high lingula. , 1989, Journal of oral and maxillofacial surgery : official journal of the American Association of Oral and Maxillofacial Surgeons.

[14]  L. Wolford,et al.  Modification of the mandibular ramus sagittal split osteotomy. , 1987, Oral surgery, oral medicine, and oral pathology.

[15]  G. Dalpont [Retro-molar osteotomy for correction of prognathism]. , 1959 .

[16]  H. Obwegeser,et al.  The surgical correction of mandibular prognathism and retrognathia with consideration of genioplasty. I. Surgical procedures to correct mandibular prognathism and reshaping of the chin. , 1957, Oral surgery, oral medicine, and oral pathology.

[17]  Bhushan Borotikar,et al.  Mechanical characteristics of the mandible after bilateral sagittal split ramus osteotomy: comparing 2 different fixation techniques. , 2005, Journal of oral and maxillofacial surgery : official journal of the American Association of Oral and Maxillofacial Surgeons.

[18]  T. Turvey,et al.  The use of self-reinforced biodegradable bone plates and screws in orthognathic surgery. , 2002, Journal of oral and maxillofacial surgery : official journal of the American Association of Oral and Maxillofacial Surgeons.

[19]  G. Dal Pont [Retro-molar osteotomy for correction of prognathism]. , 1959, Minerva chirurgica.