Top

Oral and Maxillofacial Surgery

Published in:

15-09-2022 | Review Article

Is it necessary to use bone grafts to prevent defects at the lower border of the mandible after mandibular advancement?—a systematic review

Authors: Pedro Henrique da Hora Sales, Francesco Maffìa, Valentino Vellone, Valerio Ramieri, Jair Carneiro Leão

Published in: Oral and Maxillofacial Surgery | Issue 4/2023

Abstract

Introduction

Defects in the lower border of the mandible may represent an aesthetic problem after mandibular advancement in orthognathic surgery. The use of bone grafts has been reported in the literature as a possibility to reduce these defects in the postoperative period.

Objective

The objective of this systematic review is to answer the following research question: Is it necessary to use bone grafts to prevent defects at the lower border of the mandible after mandibular advancement?

Methods

The literature search was conducted on MEDLINE via PubMed, Scopus, Central Cochrane, Embase, LILACS, and Sigle via Open Gray up until December 2020. Five studies were eligible for this systematic review, considering the previously established inclusion and exclusion criteria.

Results

1340 mandibular osteotomies were evaluated, with a mean advance of 8 mm, being 510 with bone graft (42 defects), 528 without graft (329 defects), and 302 with an alternative technique (32 defects). Regarding the type of bone graft used, three articles used xenogenous or biomaterial grafts and two allogenous bone grafts. The results of the meta-analysis showed a reduction in the presence of defects in the bone graft group: OR 0.04, 95% CI = 0.01, 0.19; p = 0.0005, (I2 = 87%; p < 0.0001).

Conclusion

The use of bone grafts seems promising in reducing defects in the lower border of the mandible after mandibular advancement. New controlled prospective studies with a larger number of participants are needed to ensure the effectiveness of this procedure.

Alyahya A, Swennen GRJ (2018) Bone grafting in orthognathic surgery: a systematic review. Int J Oral Maxillofac Surg 48:322–331. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijom.2018.08.014CrossRefPubMed

Obwegeser H, Trauner R (1955) Zur operationstechnik bei der progênie und anderenunterkieferanomaliem. Dtsch Zahn Mund Kieferheilkd 23:H1-2

Raffaini M, Magri AS, Giuntini V et al (2020) How to prevent mandibular lower border notching after bilateral sagittal split osteotomies for major advancements : analysis of 168 osteotomies. J Oral Maxillofac Surg 78:1620–1626. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.joms.2020.04.036CrossRefPubMed

Agbaje JO, Gemels B (2016) Modified mandibular inferior border sagittal split osteotomy reduces postoperative risk for developing inferior border defects. J Oral Maxillofac Surg 74:1–9. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.joms.2016.01.005CrossRef

Olubano J, Bds A, Mmi DMD et al (2013) Risk factors for the development of lower border defects after bilateral sagittal split osteotomy. J Oral Maxillofac Surg 71:588–596. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.joms.2012.07.003CrossRef

Steenen SA, van Wijk AJ, Becking AG (2016) Bad splits in bilateral sagittal split osteotomy: systematic review and meta-analysis of reported risk factors. Int J Oral Maxillofac Surg 45:971–979CrossRefPubMed

Olate S, Sigua E, Asprino L et al (2018) Complications in orthognathic surgery. J Craniofac Surg 29:e158–e161. https://doi.org/10.1097/SCS.0000000000004238CrossRefPubMed

Stoor P, Apajalahti S (2017) Osteotomy site grafting in bilateral sagittal split surgery with bioactive glass S53P4 for skeletal stability. J Craniofac Surg 28(7):1709–1716. https://doi.org/10.1097/SCS.0000000000003760CrossRefPubMed

Cifuentes J, Yanine N, Jerez D et al (2018) Use of bone grafts or modified BSSO technique in large mandibular advancements reduces the risk of persisting mandibular inferior border defects. J Oral Maxillofac Surg 76(189):e1-189.e6

10.

Trevisiol L, Nocini PF, Albanese M et al (2012) Grafting of large mandibular advancement with a collagen-coated bovine bone (Bio-Oss Collagen ) in orthognathic surgery. J Craniofac Surg 23(5):1343–1348. https://doi.org/10.1097/SCS.0b013e3182646c3aCrossRefPubMed

11.

Van der Helm HC, Kraeima J, Xi T et al (2020) The use of xenografts to prevent inferior border defects following bilateral sagittal split osteotomies: three-dimensional skeletal analysis using cone beam computed tomography. Int J Oral Maxillofac Surg 49:1029–1035CrossRefPubMed

12.

Moher D, Liberati A, Telzlaff J et al (2009) Preferred reporting items for systematic reviews and meta-analyses: the Prisma Statement. PLoS Med 6:e1000097CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral

13.

Epker BN (1977) Modification in the sagittal osteotomy of the mandible. J Oral Surg 35:157–159PubMed

14.

Hunsuck EE (1968) Modified intraoral sagittal splitting technique for correction of mandibular prognathism. J Oral Surg 26:250PubMed

15.

Gil JN, Marin C, Claus JDP et al (2007) Modified osteotome for inferior border sagittal split osteotomy. J Oral Maxillofac Surg 65:1840–1842CrossRefPubMed

16.

Mont`AlverneFilho AL, Xavier FG, Meneses AM et al (2019) Is bilateral sagittal split osteotomy of the mandible with no step possible? A modification in the technique. J Craniofac Surg 30:2275–2276CrossRef

17.

Lee BS, Ohe JY, Kim BK (2014) Differences in bone remodeling using demineralized bone matrix in bilateral sagittal split ramus osteotomy: a study on volumetric analysis using three-dimensional cone-beam computed tomography. J Oral Maxillofacial Surg 72:1151–1157CrossRef

18.

Coppey E, Mommaerts MY (2017) Earley complications from the use of calcium phosphate paste in mandibular lengthening surgery. A retrospective study. J Oral Maxillofac Surg 75:1274.e1-1274.e10CrossRefPubMed

19.

Agbaje JO, Sun Y, Vrielinck L et al (2013) Risk factors for the development of lower border defects after bilateral sagittal split osteotomy. J Oral Maxillofac Surg 71:588–596CrossRefPubMed

20.

Verweij JP, van Rijssel JG, Fiocco M et al (2017) Are there risk factors for osseous mandibular inferior border defects after bilateral sagittal split osteotomy? J Craniomaxillofacial Surg 45:192–197CrossRef

21.

Houppernmans PNWJ, Verweij JP, Mensink G et al (2016) Influence of inferior border cut on lingual fracture pattern during bilateral sagittal split osteotomy with splitter and separators: a prospective observational study. J Craniomaxillofac Surg 44:1592–1598CrossRef

22.

Ferri J, Schlund M, Roland-Billecart T et al (2019) Modified mandibular sagittal split osteotomy. J Craniofac Surg 30:897–899CrossRefPubMed

23.

Altschiller J, Yanine N, Jerez D et al (2017) Modified mandibular inferior border sagittal split osteotomy versus traditional grafted sagittal split osteotomy. Int J Oral maxillofac surg 46(1):317

24.

DalPont G (1961) Retromolar osteotomy for the correction of prognathism. J Oral Surg Anesth Hosp D Serv 19:42

25.

Duget V, Precious DS, Clinton R (1987) Saggital splitting of the ascending mandibular ramus Prevention of injury to the lower dental pedicle. Rev Stomatol Chir Maxillofac 88:71–6

26.

Wolford LM, Bennett MA, Rafferty CG (1987) Modification of the mandibular ramus sagittal split osteotomy. Oral Surg Oral Med Oral Pathol 64:146–155CrossRefPubMed

27.

Posnick JC, Choi E, Liu S (2016) Occurrence of ‘bad’ split and success of initial mandibular healing: a review of 524 sagittal ramus osteotomies in 262 patients. Int J Oral Maxillofac Surg 45:1187–1194. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijom.2016.05.003CrossRefPubMed

28.

Tal H, Moses O (1991) A comparison of panoramic radiography with computed tomography in the planning of implant surgery. Dentomaxillofac Radiol 20:40–42CrossRefPubMed

29.

Antony DP, Thomas T, Nivendhitha MS (2020) Two-dimensional periapical, panoramic radiography versus three-dimensional cone-beam computed tomography in the detection of periapical lesion after endodontic treatment: a systematic review. Cureus 19:e7736

30.

Wolford LM (2015) Influence of osteotomy design on bilateral mandibular ramus sagittal osteotomy. J Oral Maxillofac Surg 73:1994–2004CrossRefPubMed

31.

Landes C, Tran A, BAllon A et al (2014) Low to hig oblique ramus piezoosteotomy: a pilot study. J Craniomaxillofac Surg 42:901CrossRefPubMed

32.

Paulus C, Kater W (2013) High oblique sagittal split osteotomy. Rev Stomatol Maxillofac Chir Orale 114:166–169

33.

Verweij JP, Mensink G, Houppermans PNWJ et al (2015) Angled osteotomy design aimed to influence the lingual fracture line in bilateral sagittal split osteotomy: A human cadaveric study. J Oral Maxillofac Surg 73:1983–1993CrossRefPubMed

Title: Is it necessary to use bone grafts to prevent defects at the lower border of the mandible after mandibular advancement?—a systematic review
Authors: Pedro Henrique da Hora Sales
Francesco Maffìa
Valentino Vellone
Valerio Ramieri
Jair Carneiro Leão
Publication date: 15-09-2022
Publisher: Springer Berlin Heidelberg
Published in: Oral and Maxillofacial Surgery / Issue 4/2023
Print ISSN: 1865-1550
Electronic ISSN: 1865-1569
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10006-022-01112-8

2024 ASCO Annual Meeting

Springer Medicine

Is it necessary to use bone grafts to prevent defects at the lower border of the mandible after mandibular advancement?—a systematic review

Abstract

Introduction

Objective

Methods

Results

Conclusion

2024 ASCO Annual Meeting

Springer Medicine

Abstract

Introduction

Objective

Methods

Results

Conclusion

Please log in to get access to this content

Other articles of this Issue 4/2023

Does the type of planning in orthognathic surgery influence patient satisfaction?

A novel guide for minimally invasive genioplasty

Clinical outcome following conservative treatment of 58 mandibular ameloblastoma patients: a retrospective study

Effect of time-dependent ibuprofen administration on the post operatory after impacted third molar extraction: a cross-over randomized controlled trial

Non-neoplastic salivary gland diseases in children: a 10-year review at a tertiary center

Application of chemical factors for acceleration of consolidation phase of the distraction osteogenesis: a scoping review