ABSTRACT
The main objective of our study was to assess the clinical implications of concomitant intraoperative removal of maxillary third molars (M3M) with the Le Fort I osteotomy 'twist' technique (LF1twist). A prospective comparative study was carried out regarding the necessity of bone trimming around the pedicle, intra- and postoperative complications, surgery time, and the level of pterygomaxillary junction (PMJ) separation following LF1twist with concomitant intraoperative removal of M3M (test group) versus LF1twist alone (control group). Outcome parameters were assessed from clinical and radiographic measurements. In total, 100 surgery sites were included (50 in each group). The mean surgery time was 53.4 ± 7.8 min, with nonsignificant differences between groups. The frequency of intraoperative complications was negligible, with no significant differences between groups - though all bleeding events (n = 4) occurred when M3M was not removed concomitantly. No postoperative complications were recorded. Percentages of disarticulations occurring at the PMJ were similar in both groups. In conclusion, the results demonstrate that removal of M3M in conjunction with LF1twist does not imply additional surgery time, or differences regarding the level of PMJ separation or perioperative complications. Furthermore, the concomitant procedure reduces the amount of maxillary and palatal bone in the disjunction area, which facilitates down-fracture and field clearing for maxillary repositioning.
Subject(s)
Fractures, Bone , Molar, Third , Humans , Prospective Studies , Molar, Third/surgery , Osteotomy, Le Fort/adverse effects , Osteotomy, Le Fort/methods , Maxilla/surgery , Postoperative ComplicationsABSTRACT
BACKGROUND: Orthognathic surgery is a well-known surgical procedure for correction of facial deformities. The surgical procedure is performed by the use of conventional plates and by patient-specific osteosynthesis plates (PSOPs). The aim of this study is to investigate any differences in complications, financial expenses, professional and patient-reported outcome measures (PROM) in orthognathic surgery performed by conventional plates and by PSOPs. MATERIAL AND METHODS: A MEDLINE (PubMed), Embase, and Cochrane Library search was conducted. Human studies published in English through August 27, 2020 were included. Grey literature, unpublished literature as well as other databases like Scopus, Google Scholar, or Research Gate were also included in the search strategy of the present systematic review. Randomized and controlled clinical trials were included. Risk of bias was assessed by Cochrane risk of bias tool and Newcastle-Ottawa Scale. RESULTS: Five studies with unclear risk of bias and moderate quality were included. Meta-analysis was not applicable due to considerable heterogeneity. There was no significant difference in intra- and postoperative complications or professional and PROM with the two treatment modalities, although higher tendencies to reoperations were observed with conventional plates. Financial expenses were significantly higher with PSOP, but treatment planning and intraoperative time were shortened by approximately one third compared with mock surgery and conventional plates. CONCLUSIONS: No significant differences were observed in complications, professional and PROM. Higher financial expenses were recorded in orthognathic surgery performed with PSOP. Treatment planning and intraoperative time were shortened with the use of conventional plates. Although further randomized trials are needed before definite conclusions can be provided about beneficial use of PSOPs in orthognathic surgery from a professional and patient perspective.
