Articles Vol. 67 No. 9 25/09/2026

SIX-MONTH POSTOPERATIVE FOLLOW-UP RESULTS OF BILATERAL RAMUS OSTEOTOMY IN PATIENTS WITH CLASS III SKELETAL MALOCCLUSION

Le Tan Hung, Nguyen My Huyen, Nguyen Hoang Khang
DOI: 10.52163/yhc.v67i9.6703
0 Views
0 Downloads
Abstract

Objective: To describe mandibular structural changes following bilateral sagittal split osteotomy (BSSO) performed to treat mandibular prognathism.
Subjects and Methods: The study included 46 patients who underwent BSSO for mandibular setback. Lateral cephalometric radiographs were collected and analyzed preoperatively and at the 6-month follow-up.
Results: Mandibular remodeling at Condylion and Gonion generally occurred in an anterior and superior direction. No correlation was found between positional changes at Condylion and Gonion and the magnitude of surgical movement or relapse at point B and Pogonion. A statistically significant positive correlation was observed regarding postoperative anteroposterior displacement at Gonion (r = 0.62; p < 0.001).
Conclusion: Mandibular remodeling changes following BSSO occur primarily in the condylar and gonial regions, whereas the chin region remains relatively stable.

Keywords
mandibular reconstruction; bilateral sagittal split osteotomy; mandibular protrusion; cephalometry.
References
[1]
1. Björk A. The use of metallic implants in the study of facial growth in children: Method and application. Am J Phys Anthropol. 1963;29:243. Google Scholar
[2]
2. Björk A. Variations in the growth pattern of the human mandible: Longitudinal radiographic study by the implant method. J Dent Res. 1963;42:400. Google Scholar
[3]
3. Björk A, Skieller V. Normal and abnormal growth of the mandible. A synthesis of longitudinal cephalometric implant studies over a period of 25 years. Eur J Orthod. 1983;5:1. Google Scholar
[4]
4. Baumrind S, Ben-Bassat Y, Korn EL, et al. Mandibular remodeling measured on cephalograms. 1. Osseous changes relative to superimposition on metallic implants. Am J Orthod Dentofac Orthop. 1992;102:134. Google Scholar
[5]
5. Baumrind S, Ben-Bassat Y, Korn EL, et al. Mandibular remodeling measured on cephalograms: 2. A comparison of information from implant and anatomic best-fit superimpositions. Am J Orthod Dentofac Orthop. 1992;102:227. Google Scholar
[6]
6. Baumrind S, Bravo LA, Ben-Bassat Y, et al. Lower molar and incisor displacement associated with mandibular remodeling. Angle Orthod. 1996;67:93. Google Scholar
[7]
7. Sarnas KV, Rune B, Aberg M. Facial growth in a cleft palate patient treated with the Herbst appliance: A long-term profile roentgenographic and roentgen stereometric analysis of profile changes and displacement of the jaws. Cleft Palate Craniofac J. 2000;37:71. Google Scholar
[8]
8. Huang CS, Ross RB. Surgical advancement of the retrognathic mandible in growing children. Am J Orthod. 1982;82:89. Google Scholar
[9]
9. Kobayashi T, Watanabe I, Ueda K, et al. Stability of the mandible after sagittal ramus osteotomy for correction of prognathism. J Oral Maxillofac Surg. 1986;44:693. Google Scholar
[10]
10. Proffit WR, Phillips C, Dann C IV, et al. Stability after surgical-orthodontic correction of skeletal Class III malocclusion. I. Mandibular setback. Int J Adult Orthod Orthognath Surg. 1991;6:7. Google Scholar
[11]
11. de Villa GH, Huang CS, Chen PKT, et al. Bilateral sagittal split osteotomy for correction of mandibular prognathism: Long-term results. J Oral Maxillofac Surg. 2005;63:1584. Google Scholar