Which factors affect the lingual fracture pattern in sagittal split ramus osteotomy?

The purpose of this study was to elucidate the effects of mandibular anatomy and osteotomy technique on lingual fracture patterns in SSRO. The predictor variables were: length of horizontal medial osteotomy; type of border osteotomy; buccolingual width; and vertical length of the basal cortex. The outcome variable was the type of lingual split pattern. This was categorized into four types according to a lingual split scale (LSS): LSS 1, true Hunsuck; LSS 2, fracture line to posterior border of the ramus; LSS 3, through to mandibular canal; LSS 4, unfavorable fracture pattern. Data were analyzed using analysis of variance and the Pearson χ2 test. Values of p < 0.05 were considered statistically significant. The study sample comprised 312 lingual split patterns in 156 patients. The most common type of lingual split pattern was LSS 1 (n = 204). There was a significant relationship between inferior border osteotomy type and LSS type (p = 0.001). Whilst LSS 1 was the most common among all border osteotomy types. LSS 4 was most frequently observed in cases where the lower border osteotomy remained in the buccal surface. According to the results of this study, the likelihood of an unfavorable split pattern increases when the lower border osteotomy remains in the buccal surface.

Does osteotomizing the lower border of the mandible affect the lingual split pattern in a sagittal split ramus osteotomy?

AIM: The purpose of this study was to evaluate the effect of adding a fourth osteotomy at the lower border of the mandible on the lingual cortical fracture pattern in bilateral sagittal split ramus osteotomies. PATIENTS AND METHODS: The sample of the study consisted of 20 patients (12 male and 8 female, with a mean age of 26.79 ± 7.12 years) with mandibular deformities who needed bilateral sagittal split ramus osteotomy. One side underwent a traditional sagittal split ramus osteotomy, and the procedure was modified on the other side by adding a 1 cm horizontal osteotomy at the lower border of the mandible, just distal to the caudal end of the vertical buccal osteotomy cut. A 3D CBCT was used to identify the split pattern. RESULTS: In the total sample, 40% of the lingual splits ran vertically toward the lower border of the mandible (LSS1), 20% of the splits passed horizontally to the posterior border of the mandible (LSS2), 32.5% of the splits took place along the inferior alveolar canal (LSS3), and 7.5% of the splits were unfavourable fractures (LSS4). On the inferior border osteotomy sides, the distribution of LSS1, LSS2, LSS3, and LSS4 was 10 (25%), 6 (15%), 4 (10%), and 0 (00), respectively. Their distribution on the sides without inferior border osteotomy was 6 (15%), 8 (20%), 13 (32.5%), and 3 (7.5%), respectively. Statistical analysis revealed a significant difference between the two groups (p < 0.05). CONCLUSION: Inferior border osteotomy tends to direct the lingual split fracture line toward the lower and posterior borders of the mandible and minimizes bad splits; however, further studies are needed to confirm our findings.

Manejo quirúrgico de bad split bilateral en cirugía ortognática / Surgical management of bilateral bad split during orthognathic surgery

El bad split es un término clínico que refiere a una fractura no planificada que ocurre al momento de realizar una osteotomía sagital de rama mandibular (OSRM). Afecta aproximadamente al 2,3% de los pacientes y se han descrito factores de riesgo tales como la presencia de terceros molares mandibulares, edad avanzada al momento de la cirugía, técnica de osteotomía inadecuada, entre otros. Se recomienda efectuar manio-bras preventivas para evitar la aparición de patrones de fractura no deseados al realizar la OSRM. Sin embargo, al momento de pesquisar un bad split, éste debe ser tratado por un equipo capacitado y de manera oportuna para evitar retardo en la consolidación, infecciones y secuestros óseos que puedan comprometer los resultados de la cirugía. En este artículo se presenta el manejo de un caso clínico de bad split bilateral intraoperatorio por el Servicio de Cirugía Maxilofacial del Hospital San José, enfatizando su tratamiento quirúrgico.

Bad Split is a clinical term referring to an unplanned fracture that occurs during the bilateral sagittal split osteotomy (BSSO). It affects approximately 2,3% of the patients undergoing orthognathic surgery and several risk factors have been described such as the presence of mandibular third molars, advanced age at the moment of orthognathic surgery, inadequate osteotomy technique, etc. Preventive maneuvers are recommended in order to avoid the appearance of undesired fracture patterns during BSSO. However, if a bad split is detected it must be managed and treated by a qualified team to avoid further complications such as delayed bone consolidation, bone infection and necrosis. In this article we present the management of a case of bilateral bad split by the Maxillofacial Surgery Service of Hospital San José, emphasizing on its surgical treatment.

Correlation between mandibular anatomy and bad split occurrence during bilateral sagittal split osteotomy: a three-dimensional study.

OBJECTIVES: This study aimed to find out the correlation between different anatomical parameters of the mandible and the occurrence of a bad split in patients who had undergone bilateral split sagittal ramus osteotomy (BSSRO). MATERIALS AND METHOD: At both the distal roots of the first molar (1) and the retromolar area (2), we measured the distance from the buccal margin of the inferior dental canal (IDC) to the buccal margin of the cortical bone (MCBC), the thickness of both buccal cortical (WBCB) and cancellous bone (WBCA), distance from the superior border of IDC to the alveolar crest (MCAC), buccolingual thickness (BLT), and thickness of cancellous bone (WCA). At the ramus, the distances between the sigmoid notch to the upper part of the lingula (SL) and the inferior border of the mandible (SIBM), the thickness of the ramus at the level of the lingula (BLTR), and the anteroposterior width of the ramus (APWR) were measured. The paired and independent t-tests were used when applicable, and a P-value < 0.05 was considered significant. RESULTS: MCBC1 showed a significant difference between bad and non-bad split sides (P = 0.037). Both WBCA1 and WBCA2 show the same significant difference (P = 0.023, 0.024). Similarly, WCA1 and WCA2 showed a statistical difference between the bad and non-bad split sides (P = 0.027, 0.036). There were no statistically significant differences between the compared sides of WBCB1, WBCB2, MCAC1, MCAC2, SIBM, APWR, SL, and BLTR. CONCLUSION: Narrow space between IDC and the buccal cortical margin, along with the decrease in the thickness of both buccal cancellous bone and total cancellous bone at the inferior border of the mandible along the course of SSRO, has been implicated in the occurrence of bad split intraoperatively.

Bad splits in bilateral sagittal split osteotomy: A retrospective comparative analysis of the use of different tools.

This study aims to analyse the relationship between the incidence of bad splits and the surgical tools adopteded to perform bilateral sagittal split ramus osteotomy (BSSRO).BSSROs performed by the same experienced surgeon period were reviewed, retrospectively. The patients were divided into three groups according to the surgical instrument used to perform the osteotomy: a Lindemann burr, reciprocating saw or piezosurgery. Among the 1120 BSSROs performed, 5 bad fractures were detected during the observation period: 3 among patients operated with the Lindemann burr (0.8%) and 2 among those operated with a reciprocating saw (0.5%). There was no significant correlation between the bad split rate and age and gender of the patients, the type of malocclusion or the type of instrument used to perform the osteotomy. Within the limitations of the study it seems that the the choice of the osteotomy tool for BSSRO does not influence the rate of bad fractures and, therefore, the selection of the osteotmy tool should be left to the discretion of the surgeon.

Intraoperative removal of third molars does not affect the postoperative infections after BSSO - Randomized controlled trial.

The goal of this study was to evaluate the incidence of postoperative wound infection and timing of mandibular third molar removal in bilateral sagittal split osteotomy (BSSO). This wis a prospective, single-blinded, randomized, split-mouth clinical trial. All patients were divided into two groups: Group I, where pre-operative removal of the third molars were done 6 months prior to BSSO and Group II, where intra-operative removal of contralateral third molars were done for the same patients during the osteotomy. The primary outcome variable studied was postoperative infection rate and the secondary outcome variable was bad split during BSSO. Among the seventy five patients (150 sites), one site in group II developed infection whereas none of the sites in group I developed infection (p = 1.000). No sites had bad split in both the groups. The results from the present study show that there is no difference between the presence or absence of mandibular third molars on post-operative wound infection following bilateral sagittal split osteotomy, and the authors hence suggest removing third molars during BSSO for patient comfort.

Dal Pont vs Hunsuck: Which Technique Can Lead to a Lower Incidence of Bad Split during Bilateral Sagittal Split Osteotomy? A Triple-blind Randomized Clinical Trial.

BACKGROUND: We aimed to assess the incidence of bad split fractures during Bilateral Sagittal Split Osteotomy (BSSO) mandibular setback surgery using Dal Pont and Hunsuck techniques. METHODS: All healthy adults with skeletal class III discrepancy, who were candidates for mandibular setback surgery were enrolled in this randomized clinical trial in the Maxillofacial Surgery Department of Qaem Hospital, Mashhad, Iran; from 2018-2020. These patients were randomly divided into two equal groups; one group underwent BSSO using Dal Pont osteotomy while the Hunsuck osteotomy was employed for the other group. A bad split fracture which identified through intra-operative clinical and postoperative radiographic examination was the outcome variable. The significance level was set at 0.05 using SPSS 16. RESULTS: Overall, 104 consecutive patients, comprising of 52 (50%) males with an average age of 23.09±3.08 were recruited. The average duration of osteotomy and splitting was reported to be 22.74±3.06 min. 10 bad split fractures (9.62%) were observed; 7 of which occurred in the Dal Pont group and 3 in the Hunsuck group. However, this difference was not significant. In 80% of the cases, bad split osteotomy occurred in the proximal segment, while this finding was identified in the distal segment in 20% of cases. The average duration of osteotomy and splitting was significantly longer in the Dal Pont group (P<0.001). CONCLUSION: The duration of osteotomy and splitting is much shorter when the Hunsuck technique is employed, and the incidence of unfavorable fractures is also less compared to the Dal Pont osteotomy technique.

Risk factors for bad splits during sagittal split ramus osteotomy: a retrospective study of 964 cases.

To identify the potential risk factors for bad splits, we calculated the incidence of bad splits from 484 patients with 964 cases of sagittal split ramus osteotomy (SSRO) and investigated the association between the occurrence of bad splits and risk factors such as gender, patients' age, class of occlusion, unimaxillary or bimaxillary surgery, presence of the lower third molar, thickness of the ascending ramus, and the distance from the mandibular canal to the buccal cortical bone. The results showed that 40 sides (4.149%) with bad splits occurred in 36 patients (7.438%). The mean (SD) gap width from the canal to the buccal cortex for the bad split group, at 4.02 (1.20)mm, was narrower (p=0.003; OR=0.689; 95% CI=0.538 to 0.882) than the normal split group 4.80 (1.72)mm. On the contrary, no statistical significance (p>0.05) was detected between the patients with bad splits and those with normal splits for the other factors. In conclusion, SSRO patients with narrower distances from the mandibular canal to the buccal cortex were more prone to bad splits. More attention should be paid to patients with this risk factor during future surgeries.

Does the Presence of Impacted Mandibular Third Molars Increase the Risk of Bad Split Incidence During Bilateral Sagittal Split Osteotomy?

BACKGROUND: The possibility of mandibular bad spilt might happen during bilateral sagittal split osteotomy (BSSO). This study investigated the effect of impacted mandibular third molars on bad spilt incidence during BSSO. METHODS: Totally, 140 patients under 40 years old who were candidates for BSSO surgery due to class 3 skeletal discrepancy were divided randomly into two equal groups. The impacted mandibular third molars were presented in one group during BSSO (Exposed), and the third molars were removed at least six months before surgery for the other group (Unexposed). All cases underwent BSSO using the same technique by a single surgeon. A bad split was diagnosed by inter-operative clinical examination and postoperative panoramic radiography. RESULTS: Four bad split occurrences were observed including three patients in the group which impacted mandibular third molars were presented and one patient in the group without impacted mandibular third molars. The incidence of bad fracture in the exposed group was 3.7 times more than the unexposed group. The incidence of the bad fracture in exposed group was 3.7 times more than unexposed group. The chance of fractures in females was 1.7 times higher than males. With one year addition to the patient's age, chance of fracture increased 0.985 times more. CONCLUSION: Overall incidence of bad split fracture in presence of mandibular third molars in females and at older ages increased during BSSO. The extraction of impacted mandibular third molars, six months before the BSSO is recommended to prevent the bad split incidence during the operation.

Importance in the occurrence rate of shortest buccal bone marrow distance (<1 mm) for sagittal split ramus osteotomy.

BACKGROUND/PURPOSE: The neurosensory disturbance is a common complication following sagittal split ramus osteotomy (SSRO) whereas the shortest buccal bone marrow (SBM) is an important risk factor. The present study aimed to investigate the relationship between the occurrence rates of SBM among three skeletal patterns. METHODS: The cone-beam computed tomography (CBCT) images of 90 participants were divided into skeletal Class I, II, and III. There were six horizontal planes separated apart by a 2 mm interval; it started with plane 0 (original intact mandibular canal) to plane 5 which was 10 mm below. The data of SBM were divided into two groups (SBM ≥ 1 mm and SBM < 1 mm). With an SBM value < 1 mm, we defined a high occurrence rate of postoperative neurosensory abnormality or unfavorable split. RESULTS: The Class III patients had the smallest SBM value (1.31-1.75 mm) whereas the Class II patients had the largest SBM value (1.57-2.09 mm). For the Class III patients, the highest and lowest occurrence rates of SBM were 56.5% and 43.5% respectively. For the Class II patients, the highest and lowest occurrence rates of SBM were 37.1% and 17.7% respectively. The patients with Class III malocclusion had higher occurrence rates of SBM than the patients with Class II malocclusion. CONCLUSION: Class III had a significantly higher occurrence of probability (SBM < 1 mm) than Class II. Therefore, patients with Class III were more likely to experience postoperative neurosensory abnormalities and unfavorable split than patients with Class II.

Preventing hypoesthesia after a buccal plate fracture in a sagittal split procedure: A technical note.

If during a sagittal split osteotomy a buccal plate fracture occurs, it inevitably results in a time-consuming procedure with, in many cases, hypoesthesia of the mental region as a consequence of manipulation of the inferior alveolar nerve. We would like to present a novel technique to solve a (threatening) buccal plate fracture that is quick and easy to perform, and has thus far not resulted in hypoesthesia.

Risk factors for common complications associated with bilateral sagittal split osteotomy: A literature review and meta-analysis.

The most common complications that are associated with bilateral sagittal split osteotomy are: bad splits, postoperative infection, removal of osteosynthesis material, and neurosensory disturbances of the lower lip. Particularly in elective orthognathic surgery, it is important that surgeons inform their patients about the risk of these complications and attempt to minimize these risks. The purpose of this literature review and meta-analysis is to provide an overview of these common complications and their risk factors. After a systematic electronic database search, 59 studies were identified and included in this review. For each complication, a pooled mean incidence was computed. Both the pooled study group and the pooled 'complication group' were analysed. The mean incidences for bad split (2.3% per SSO), postoperative infection (9.6% per patient), removal of the osteosynthesis material (11.2% per patient), and neurosensory disturbances of the lower lip (33.9% per patient) are reported. Regularly reported risk factors for complications were the patient's age, smoking habits, presence of third molars, the surgical technique and type of osteosynthesis material. This information may help the surgeon to minimize the risk of these complications and inform the patient about the risks of complications associated with bilateral sagittal split osteotomy.

Occurrence of a 'bad' split and success of initial mandibular healing: a review of 524 sagittal ramus osteotomies in 262 patients.

The purpose of this study was to assess the prevalence of a 'bad' split after sagittal ramus osteotomies (SRO) and report the results of initial mandibular healing. A retrospective cohort study derived from patients treated by a single surgeon at one institution between 2004 and 2013 was performed. An index group consisting of a series of subjects with a spectrum of bimaxillary dentofacial deformities also involving the chin and symptomatic chronic obstructive nasal breathing was identified. The SRO design, bicortical screw fixation technique, and perioperative management were consistent. Outcome variables included the occurrence of a 'bad' split and the success of initial SRO healing. Two hundred sixty-two subjects undergoing 524 SROs met the inclusion criteria. Their average age was 25 years (range 13-63 years) and 134 were female (51%). Simultaneous removal of a third molar was performed during 209 of the SROs (40%). There were no 'bad' splits. All subjects achieved successful bone union, the planned occlusion, and return to a chewing diet and physical activities by 5 weeks after surgery. The presence of a third molar removed during SRO was not associated with an increased frequency of a 'bad' split or delayed mandibular healing.

Bad splits in bilateral sagittal split osteotomy: systematic review of fracture patterns.

An unfavourable and unanticipated pattern of the mandibular sagittal split osteotomy is generally referred to as a 'bad split'. Few restorative techniques to manage the situation have been described. In this article, a classification of reported bad split pattern types is proposed and appropriate salvage procedures to manage the different types of undesired fracture are presented. A systematic review was undertaken, yielding a total of 33 studies published between 1971 and 2015. These reported a total of 458 cases of bad splits among 19,527 sagittal ramus osteotomies in 10,271 patients. The total reported incidence of bad split was 2.3% of sagittal splits. The most frequently encountered were buccal plate fractures of the proximal segment (types 1A-F) and lingual fractures of the distal segment (types 2A and 2B). Coronoid fractures (type 3) and condylar neck fractures (type 4) have seldom been reported. The various types of bad split may require different salvage approaches.

Bad splits in bilateral sagittal split osteotomy: systematic review and meta-analysis of reported risk factors.

An unfavourable and unanticipated pattern of the bilateral sagittal split osteotomy (BSSO) is generally referred to as a 'bad split'. Patient factors predictive of a bad split reported in the literature are controversial. Suggested risk factors are reviewed in this article. A systematic review was undertaken, yielding a total of 30 studies published between 1971 and 2015 reporting the incidence of bad split and patient age, and/or surgical technique employed, and/or the presence of third molars. These included 22 retrospective cohort studies, six prospective cohort studies, one matched-pair analysis, and one case series. Spearman's rank correlation showed a statistically significant but weak correlation between increasing average age and increasing occurrence of bad splits in 18 studies (ρ=0.229; P<0.01). No comparative studies were found that assessed the incidence of bad split among the different splitting techniques. A meta-analysis pooling the effect sizes of seven cohort studies showed no significant difference in the incidence of bad split between cohorts of patients with third molars present and concomitantly removed during surgery, and patients in whom third molars were removed at least 6 months preoperatively (odds ratio 1.16, 95% confidence interval 0.73-1.85, Z=0.64, P=0.52). In summary, there is no robust evidence to date to show that any risk factor influences the incidence of bad split.

Medial cortex fracture patterns after sagittal split osteotomy using short versus long medial cuts: can we obviate bad splits?

The aim of the present study was to evaluate the lingual fracture patterns after sagittal split osteotomy (SSO) using short and long medial osteotomy cuts, via three-dimensional (3D) cone beam computed tomography (CBCT). Forty-six subjects participated in this prospective study. Two types of medial osteotomy line were made: for type I, the medial osteotomy line was finished just before the lingula; for type II, the medial osteotomy line was extended 3-4mm beyond the lingula. Three fracture patterns were observed after SSOs. There were no significant differences in the medial fracture patterns between the two medial osteotomy types (P=0.16). The buccolingual thickness of the ramus was lower in fractures with pattern 3 (bad split) than in the two other fracture patterns. The length of the medial osteotomy line - short or long - did not alter the prevalence of a bad split. The bone thickness of the ramus may affect the type of fracture pattern on the medial side of the ramus.

Impacted third molars in sagittal split osteotomies in mandibular prognathism and micrognathia.

BACKGROUND: The timing of removal of mandibular third molars (M3) in Sagittal Split Osteotomy (SSO) has been an issue of contention. The aim of this retrospective study is to identify the incidence of unfavorable fractures during SSO with the presence of M3 and to identify the association between unfavorable fractures with the factors specifically related to the M3. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Retrospective analysis of consecutive bilateral sagittal split osteotomy (BSSO) patient's treatment records of 208 patients treated by a single surgeon was analyzed. The position of M3, fracture details, and demographics were collected. Descriptive statistics and Chi-square tests were employed in SPSS package. A P ≤ 0.05 was taken as significant. RESULTS: There were altogether 416 SSO performed. M3 was completely impacted in 88.9% of all instances, and in 85.6% of the instances, the bulk of the M3 was identified to be above the external oblique ridge. In 59.4% of the cases, M3 was positioned in alignment with the arch as observed during surgery. There were about 27 (6.5%) instances of unfavorable splits. A statistically significant relationship was observed with M3 root morphology and axial position of M3. DISCUSSION: This study for the first time has confirmed the spatial positioning of M3 as one of the several causes of unfavorable splits during SSO. An impacted M3 that lies below the oblique ridge, distoangularly/vertically oriented, with divergent/supernumerary root would cause unfavorable splits when the spreader is not used properly. Potential causes and influencing factors of the unfavorable splits are discussed.

Estudo do risco de injúra ao canal mandibular em imagens de tomografia computadorizada por feixe cônico / Study of the injury risk to the mandibular canal bycone beam computed tomography images

O conhecimento anatômico da mandíbula, do canal mandibular e outros reparos presentes na região mandibular são essenciais para o sucesso em vários procedimentos odontológicos, variando desde o mais básico como a anestesia, até procedimentos mais complexos, tais como a instalação de implantes, cirurgias ortognáticas e até mesmo cirurgias para correções estéticas de ângulo mandibular. O objetivo deste trabalho foi analisar as distâncias presentes da cortical vestibular mandibular, até a cortical vestibular do canal mandibular em 3 regiões específicas além da avaliação da região de fusão entre o córtex vestibular e lingual em exames de TCFC. Foram selecionadas 100 imagens de exames de TCFC pertencentes ao arquivo de imagens do Departamento de Estomatologia da Faculdade de Odontologia de Bauru. Para análise das medidas foi estudado o canal mandibular sendo investigadas as distâncias em pontos específicos que seriam de grande importância durante a realização de osteotomias em ramo e corpo mandibular, bem como a possibilidade de injúria neurosensorial. A distância da cortical vestibular do canal mandibular até a cortical vestibular da mandíbula foi de 2.95 mm na região da entrada do NAI na mandíbula, 3.88 mm na região de transição do ramo mandibular para corpo mandibular e 4,72 mm para a região mesial de segundos molares. A distância média da cortical lingual do canal mandibular até a cortical lingual da mandíbula foi de 2.07 mm na região de transição de ramo mandibular para corpo mandibular e 2.22 mm na região mesial de segundos molares. A distância da cortical do soalho do canal mandibular até a base mandibular foi correspondente a 8.54 mm na área de transição de ramo mandibular para corpo mandibular e de 6.97 mm na região mesial de segundos molares. A distância média da cortical do teto do canal mandibular até a cortical óssea superior da mandíbula na região de transição de ramo mandibular para corpo mandibular foi de 16.35 mm e de 16.08 mm para a zona...

The anatomical knowledge of the jaw, the mandibular canal and other anatomical landmarks in the mandibular region are essential for success in various dental procedures, from anesthesia to implants insertions, orthognatic surgery and aesthetic corrections of mandibular angle.The aim of this paper was to locate the mandibular canal to the mandibular corticals canal in 3 specific regions and to evaluate union between the buccal and lingual cortical. We selected 100 CBCT exams of belonging to the image files of the Stomatology Department of the School of Dentistry in Bauru - Brazil.The distance of the mandibular canal cortical to the buccal plate of the mandible was 2.95 mm in the area of the entrance to the alveolar inferior nerve (AIN) into the mandibula, 3.88 mm in the transition region of the mandibular ramus to mandibular body and 4.72 mm for mesial region of second molars.The average distance of mandibular canal corticalto the lingual plate of mandible was 2.07 mm in the transition region of mandibular ramus to mandibular body and 2.22 mm in the mesial of second molars. The distance from the floor of the cortical mandibular base canal was corresponding to 8.54 mm in the area of transition of mandibular ramus to mandibular body and 6.97 mm in the mesial of second molars.The average distance from the ceiling of the cortical mandibular canal until the upper bone in mandibular cortical transition region of mandibular ramus for mandibular body was 16.35 mm and 16.08 mm for zone corresponds to the mesial area of second molars. In the mandibular foramen, place of entry of AIN in the mandibular the average obtained for the diameter of the canal was of 2.78 mm, while in the transition region between mandibular ramus and mandibular body the average for the same diameter was 3.85 mm and in the mesial of second molar this measure was 2.99 mm. In 13 of the patients surveyed had some sort of anatomical variation present in the mandibular...