Back to Search Start Over

Moving the mandible in orthognathic surgery – A multicenter analysis

Authors :
Daniel Rothamel
Bernd Fleiner
Martin Klein
Maria Desmedt
Klaus Dietrich Wolff
Martin Scheer
Michael Ehrenfeld
Andreas Kolk
Max Heiland
Stefan Haßfeld
Johannes Hidding
Christoph M. Ziegler
Oliver C. Thiele
Frank Palm
Carsten Dittes
Wolfgang Kater
Lars Bonitz
Wolfgang J. Spitzer
Andreas Hammacher
Alexander Hemprich
Norbert R. Kübler
Leonore Gmelin
Cornelius Klein
Rainer Schmelzeisen
Frank Hölzle
Tateyuki Iizuka
Annegret Dörre
Christian Schippers
Christian Stoll
Constantin A. Landes
Dieter Weingart
Michael Rasse
Hans-Peter Howaldt
Gido Bittermann
Gerhard W. Paulus
Bernhard Frerich
Robert A. Mischkowski
Alexander Gaggl
Hendrik Terheyden
Johannes Kuttenberger
Thomas Kreusch
Robert Sader
Jörg Wiltfang
Joachim E. Zöller
Henning Schliephake
Jörn U. Piesold
Martin Kunkel
Birgit Scheffler
Steffen Mokros
Alexander C. Kübler
Jan Rustemeyer
Andreas Neff
Bernhard Lehner
Marcus Gerressen
Robert Köhnke
Anton Dunsche
Matthias Kreppel
Emeka Nkenke
Alexander Schramm
Herbert Rodemer
Alexander W. Eckert
Publication Year :
2016
Publisher :
Elsevier, 2016.

Abstract

Orthognathic surgery has always been a classical focus of maxillofacial surgery. Since more than 100 years, various surgical techniques for mandibular repositioning have been developed and clinically tested. Since the establishment of plate and screw osteosynthesis, orthognathic surgery became more stable and safe. Nowadays, different surgical methods for mobilising the mandible are existing. This international multicenter analysis (n = 51 hospitals) is providing first evidence based data for the current use of different surgical methods. The dominating techniques were Obwegeser/dal Pont (61%) followed by Hunsuck/Epker (37%) and Perthes/Schlössmann (29%). The main osteosynthesis materials were plates (82%), bicortical screws (23.5%), or a combination of both (5.9%). 47% of all centers reported to use several surgical methods at the same time, depending on the anatomical problem and the surgeon's preference. This shows that different surgical methods seem to work as comparable, safe, and reliable procedures in everydays clinical practise. On this basis, further prospective studies could evaluate possible advantages for our patients.

Details

Language :
English
Database :
OpenAIRE
Accession number :
edsair.doi.dedup.....1b4af58e2d132261eda3346f098b5cda
Full Text :
https://doi.org/10.7892/boris.95106