ABSTRACT
Objective: This retrospective study evaluated the mandibular condyle position before and after bimaxillary orthognathic surgery performed with the mandibular condyle positioned manually in patients with mandibular prognathism using cone-beam computed tomography. Methods: Overall, 88 mandibular condyles from 44 adult patients (20 female and 24 male) diagnosed with mandibular prognathism due to skeletal Class III malocclusion who underwent bilateral sagittal split ramus osteotomy (BSSRO) and Le Fort I performed using the manual condyle positioning method were included. Cone-beam computed tomography images obtained 1-2 weeks before (T0) and approximately 6 months after (T1) surgery were analyzed in three planes using 3D Slicer software. Statistical significance was set at P < 0.05 level. Results: Significant inward rotation of the left mandibular condyle and significant outward rotation of the right mandibular condyle were observed in the axial and coronal planes (P < 0.05). The positions of the right and left condyles in the sagittal plane and the distance between the most medial points of the condyles in the coronal plane did not differ significantly (P > 0.05). Conclusions: While the change in the sagittal plane can be maintained as before surgery with manual positioning during the BSSRO procedure, significant inward and outward rotation was observed in the axial and coronal planes, respectively, even in the absence of concomitant temporomandibular joint disorder before or after the operation. Further long-term studies are needed to correlate these findings with possible clinical consequences.
ABSTRACT
OBJECTIVE: The authors aim to share their experiences in subperiosteal implant applications in atrophic jaws, which have been practiced in their clinic for about 2 years, and evaluate the complications and clinical success of the implants. MATERIAL AND METHOD: Clinical and radiologic data of 32 patients who underwent subperiosteal implantation for advanced alveolar bone loss were evaluated, but 1 patient was excluded as they smoked. Of the 31 patients included in the study, 27 were operated with the diagnosis of total tooth loss, 3 for maxillectomy and 1 for partial tooth loss. A total of 60 subperiosteal implants were placed in them. The mean follow-up period was 15 months. RESULTS: During the operation, implant-bone adaptation problems were encountered in 11 patients, implant skeletal fracture in 1 patient, and loss of primary stabilization during mini-screw fixation in 2. Although there were no complications in the early postoperative period, biological and prosthetic complications occurred in the late postoperative period. Soft tissue retraction at various levels in 12 patients (only keratinized tissue retraction in 6 and mucosal retraction exceeding keratinized tissue in 6), soft tissue infection in 5 and oroantral fistula development in 1, mini-screw loosening in 3 were the biological complications that occurred. CONCLUSIONS: Various complications may occur during or after the application of custom-made subperiosteal implants. However, these are manageable and can be reapplied in case of a possible implant loss, making it an important alternative, especially in atrophic jaws where endosseous dental implants cannot be applied.
