EVALUATION OF CLINICAL OUTCOMES OF BILATERAL SAGITTAL SPLIT OSTEOTOMY IN THE TREATMENT OF SKELETAL CLASS III MALOCCLUSION
Main Article Content
Abstract
Background: Class III skeletal malocclusion caused by mandibular hyperplasia significantly impacts both aesthetics and masticatory function. Bilateral Sagittal Split Osteotomy (BSSO) is an effective and safe surgical procedure that markedly improves skeletal relationships, dental occlusion, and facial harmony.
Objective: To describe the clinical and radiographic characteristics of Class III skeletal malocclusion patients before treatment and to evaluate changes in hard tissue parameters on cephalometric radiographs post-surgery.
Materials and Methods: A retrospective longitudinal study was conducted on 46 patients (mean age 21.67 years) who underwent BSSO. Cephalometric measurements were performed at three stages: preoperative (T0), 10 days postoperative (T1), and 6 months postoperative (T2).
Results: Postoperatively, the mandibular skeletal relationship returned to Class I, with the SNB angle decreasing by an average of 3.95° and the ANB angle increasing significantly (p < 0.05). At the 6-month follow-up, skeletal relapse was not clinically significant (p > 0.05).
Conclusion: Mandibular setback via BSSO is an effective method for correcting skeletal relationships in Class III malocclusion. Preliminary results at 6 months show a stable trend; however, studies with longer follow-up periods are necessary for definitive confirmation.
Article Details
Keywords
Class III skeletal malocclusion, Bilateral Sagittal Split Osteotomy (BSSO), Orthognathic surgery
References
[2] Reyneke J.P., Bryant R.S., Suuronen R. and Becker P.J. (2007), "Postoperative skeletal stability following clockwise and counter-clockwise rotation of the maxillomandibular complex compared to conventional orthognathic treatment", Br J Oral Maxillofac Surg, 45 (1), pp. 56-64, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.bjoms.2005.12.015
[3] Ay Ünüvar Y, Köse E. (2023), “Evaluation of Maxillary Sinus Volume of Class III Individuals with Different Jaw Positions by Cone-Beam Computed Tomography”, Turk J Orthod, 29;36(3), pp. 180-185. doi: 10.4274/TurkJOrthod.2022.2022.12.
[4] Bassam M. Abotaleb PhD ∗, Khaled Alkebsi PhD (2022), “Influence of Inferior Alveolar Nerve Exposure During Sagittal Split Osteotomy on the Rate and Timing of Baseline Sensory Recovery”, J Oral Maxillofac Surg., 80(12), pp. 1893–1901. DOI:10.1016/j.joms.2022.08.022.
[5] Martinez P, Bellot-Arcís C, Llamas JM, Cibrian R, Gandia JL, Paredes-Gallardo V (2017), “Orthodontic camouflage versus orthognathic surgery for class III deformity: comparative cephalometric analysis”, Int J Oral Maxillofac Surg, 46(4), pp. 490-495. doi: 10.1016/j.ijom.2016.12.001.
[6] Jokić D, Jokić D, Uglešić V, Macan D, Knežević P (2013), “Soft tissue changes after mandibular setback and bimaxillary surgery in Class III patients”, Angle Orthod, 83(5), pp. 817-23. doi: 10.2319/100112-775.1.
[7] Kalluf G, Tatim T. (2024), “Three-dimensional changes in the mandibular condyle in skeletal class III patients treated with orthognathic surgery: a systematic review”, British journal ò Oral and Maxillofacial Surgery, 62(10), pp. 909-916.
[8] Proffit WR, Turvey TA, Phillips C (2007), “The hierarchy of stability and predictability in orthognathic surgery with rigid fixation: an update and extension”, Head Face Med, 30, pp. 3-21. doi: 10.1186/1746-160X-3-21.
[9] Gao M, Tao Y, Bi S, Li J, Ren Z (2025), “Three-dimensional evaluation of stability after bimaxillary orthognathic surgery for skeletal class III malocclusion in patients with cleft lip and palate”, BMC Oral Health, 25(1), pp. 1833. doi: 10.1186/s12903-025-07160-2. PMID: 41291591; PMCID: PMC12649010.