Email Alert | RSS

Journal of Peking University(Health Sciences) ›› 2020, Vol. 52 ›› Issue (1): 113-118. doi: 10.19723/j.issn.1671-167X.2020.01.018

Previous Articles     Next Articles

Evaluation of mandibular stability and condylar volume after orthognathic surgery in patients with severe temporomandibular joint osteoarthrosis

Lei HOU,Guo-hua YE,Xiao-jing LIU,Zi-li LI()   

  1. Department of Oral and Maxillofacial Surgery,Peking University School and Hospital of Stomatology & National Clinical Research Center for Oral Diseases & National Engineering Laboratory for Digital and Material Technology of Stomatology & Beijing Key Laboratory of Digital Stomatology, Beijing 100081, China
  • Received:2019-10-10 Online:2020-02-18 Published:2020-02-20
  • Contact: Zi-li LI E-mail:kqlzl@sina.com
  • Supported by:
    Supported by the Clinical Research Projects by Beijing Municipal Science & Technology Commission(Z181100001718130)

RICH HTML

   

PDF (PC)

Abstract:

Objective: To investigate the effect of preoperative condylar condition for mandible retrognathism deformities with severe temporomandibular joint osteoarthrosis on the stability of the jaw after orthognathic surgery and on the postoperative condylar volume changes. Methods: In this retrospective study, from 2014 to 2019, 37 patients including 1 male and 36 female, aged between 21 to 34 years old with an average age of (28.03±6.52) years, were diagnosed with mandible retrognathism deformities with severe temporomandibular joint osteoarthrosis by Peking University School and Hospital of Stomatology and received orthognathic surgery, meeting the inclusion criteria were included. According to the preoperative condylar condition. There were divided into smooth group and non-smooth group, the lateral cephalometric films 1 week (T0), 3 months (T1), 6 months (T2) and 1 year (T3) after surgery were used to establish the coordinate system and cephalometric analysis to determine the stability of the jaw after operation. The three-dimensional model of the condyle was segmented by cone beam computed tomography (CBCT) 1 week (T0), 3 months (T1), 6 months (T2) and 1 year (T3) after surgery and the volume was obtained to evaluate the change of the condyle volume after surgery. CBCT image data was used to evaluate the changes of the condylar condition after surgery, and to clarify the correlation between the postoperative condylar condition and jaw stability. SPSS 20.0 statistical software was used for statistical analysis, Fisher’s exact probability methods were used to compare whether there were statistically significant differences in the stability of the mandibular joint at stages T1, T2 and T3 with different preoperative condylar condition.Spearman correlation coefficient analysis and Mann-Whitney test were used to compare whether there were statistically significant differences in the volume changes at stages T1, T2 and T3 after surgery between the two groups. Results: The recurrence rates of the mandible in the condylar smooth group were T1 36.85%, T2 47.37% and T3 42.11%, respectively. The recurrence rates in the non-smooth condylar group were T1 27.78%, T2 44.44% and T3 55.56%, respectively. There was no statistical difference in the recurrence rates between the two groups at different time points. There was no significant difference in the condylar volume change between smooth group and non-smooth group. Conclusion: For patients with mandible retrognathism deformities with severe temporomandibular joint osteoarthrosis and no significant changes in the condyle observed for one year before surgery, there is no difference in the influence of the preoperative condylar condition on the stability of jaw after operation, and no definite influence on the volume of the condyle after operation. Condylar resorption 3 months after surgery can cause instability of the jaw after orthognathic surgery.

Key words: Severe osteoarthrosis, Retrognathia, Orthognathic surgery, Relapse

CLC Number: 

  • R782

Figure 1

ProPlan2.1 software for 3D segmentation and reconstruction of condylar A, coronal view; B, horizontal view; C, sagittal view; D, 3D reconstruction view of mandible and bilateral condyles."

Figure 2

Cephalometric establishment of coordinate system and indicating points S, sella; N, nasion; A, subspinale; B, supramental; Pg, pogonion; Me, menton; Go, gonion; Ar, articulare."

Table 1

Definition of landmarks in each cephalometric film"

Landmark Definition
S Geometric center of pituitary fossa
N Most anterior point on fronto-nasal suture
A The most posterior point in the concavity between ANS and prosthion
B The most posterior midline point in the concavity of the mandible between the most superior point on the alveolar bone overlying the mandibular incisors (infradentale) and Pg
Pg The most anterior point on the symphysis
Ar The intersection of the lower margin of the skull base and the posterior margin of the mandibular condyle neck

Table 2

Definition of angles and lines in each cephalometric film"

Measurement
items		 Definition
SNA The angle formed by point S, point N and point A
SNB The angle formed by point S, point N and point B
MP-SN The angle of intersection of the MP plane and the SN plane
B-x The forward and backward distance of point B
B-y The vertical distance of point B
Pg-x The forward and backward distance of point Pg
Pg-y The vertical distance of point Pg

Table 3

Comparison of the stability of jaw after orthognathic surgery between the smooth group and non-smooth group"

Group T1 T2 T3
Stable Unstable P Stable Unstable P Stable Unstable P
Smooth 63.15%
(12/19)		 36.85%
(7/19)		 0.73 52.63%
(10/19)		 47.37%
(9/19)		 1.00 57.89%
(11/19)		 42.11%
(8/19)		 0.57
Non-smooth 72.22%
(13/18)		 27.78%
(5/18)		 55.56%
(10/18)		 44.44%
(8/18)		 44.44%
(8/18)		 55.56%
(10/18)

Table 4

Comparison of changes in condylar volume after orthognathic surgery between smooth and non-smooth condylar processes"

Group Smooth Non-smooth P
Left condylar T1 0.00(-8.00, 8.00) 5.00 (-0.75, 10.00) 0.12
T2 3.00 (-4.00, 14.00) 10.00 (-1.00, 13.25) 0.36
T3 9.00 (4.00, 17.00) 12.00 (-0.75, 16.25) 0.96
Right Condylar T1 -2.00 (-5.00, 10.00) 1.00 (-2.05, 5.75) 0.65
T2 6.00 (-4.00, 19.00) 2.00 (-3.75, 6.00) 0.09
T3 1.00 (1.00, 19.00) 8.50 (-0.25, 21.00) 0.64

Table 5

Analysis of the correlation between the progress of the condylar and the stability of the jaws"

Group T1 T2 T3
Stable Unstable P Stable Unstable P Stable Unstable P
Smooth Condylar Stable 8 3 1.00 5 5 0.64 6 7 1.00
Condylar progress 5 2 5 3 2 3
Non smooth Condylar Stable 11 3 0.03 3 7 0.07 7 4 0.65
Condylar progress 1 4 7 2 4 4
[1] Rocha VA, Neto AI, Rebello IM , et al. Skeletal stability in orthognathic surgery: evaluation of methods of rigid internal fixation after counterclockwise rotation in patients with class Ⅱ deformities[J]. Br J Oral Maxillofac Surg, 2015,53(8):730-735.
[2] Krisjane Z, Urtane I, Krumina G , et al. The prevalence of TMJ osteoarthritis in asymptomatic patients with dentofacial deformities: a cone-beam CT study[J]. Int J Oral Maxillofac Surg, 2012,41(6):690-695.
[3] Chen S, Lei J, Fu KY , et al. Cephalometric analysis of the facial skeletal morphology of female patients exhibiting skeletal class ii deformity with and without temporomandibular joint osteoarthrosis[J]. PLoS One, 2015,10(10):e0139743.
[4] Nogami S, Yamauchi K, Satomi N , et al. Risk factors related to aggressive condylar resorption after orthognathic surgery for females: retrospective study[J]. Cranio, 2017,35(4):250-258.
[5] Posnick JC, Fantuzzo JJ . Idiopathic condylar resorption: current clinical perspectives[J]. J Oral Maxillofac Surg, 2007,65(8):1617-1623.
[6] Honey OB, Scarfe WC, Hilgers MJ , et al. Accuracy of cone-beam computed tomography imaging of the temporomandibular joint: comparisons with panoramic radiology and linear tomography[J]. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop, 2007,132(4):429-438.
[7] Bayram M, Kayipmaz S, Sezgin OS , et al. Volumetric analysis of the mandibular condyle using cone beam computed tomography[J]. Eur J Radiol, 2012,81(8):1812-1816.
[8] Kadesjo N, Benchimol D, Falahat B , et al. Evaluation of the effective dose of cone beam CT and multislice CT for temporomandibular joint examinations at optimized exposure levels [J]. Dentomaxillofac Radiol, 2015, 44(8): 20150041[2019-09-10].
[9] Tecco S, Saccucci M, Nucera R , et al. Condylar volume and surface in Caucasian young adult subjects[J]. BMC Med Imaging, 2010,31(10):28.
[10] Xi T, Schreurs R, van Loon B , et al. 3D analysis of condylar remodelling and skeletal relapse following bilateral sagittal split advancement osteotomies[J]. J Craniomaxillofac Surg, 2015,43(4):462-468.
[11] Jung J, Kim J H, Lee J W , et al. Three-dimensional volumetric analysis of condylar head and glenoid cavity after mandibular advancement[J]. J Craniomaxillofac Surg, 2018,46(9):1470-1475.
[12] da Silva RJ, Valadares Souza CV, Souza GA , et al. Changes in condylar volume and joint spaces after orthognathic surgery[J]. Int J Oral Maxillofac Surg, 2018,47(4):511-517.
[13] 雷杰, 秦思思, 傅开元 . 锥体束CT影像评估颞下颌关节重度骨关节病髁突骨改变的稳定性[J]. 中华口腔正畸学杂志, 2017,24(4):212-216.
[14] Alexiou K, Stamatakis H, Tsiklakis K . Evaluation of the severity of temporomandibular joint osteoarthritic changes related to age using cone beam computed tomography[J]. Dentomaxillofac Radiol, 2009,38(3):141-147.
[15] Ahmad M, Hollender L, Anderson Q , et al. Research diagnostic criteria for temporomandibular disorders (RDC/TMD): development of image analysis criteria and examiner reliability for image analysis[J]. Oral Surg Oral Med Oral Pathol Oral Radiol Endod, 2009,107(6):844-860.
[16] Talaat W, Al Bayatti S, Al Kawas S . CBCT analysis of bony changes associated with temporomandibular disorders[J]. Cranio, 2016,34(2):88-94.
[17] Tamimi D, Jalali E, Hatcher D . Temporomandibular joint imaging[J]. Radiol Clin North Am, 2018,56(1):157-175.
[18] Proffit WR, Turvey TA, Phillips C . The hierarchy of stability and predictability in orthognathic surgery with rigid fixation: an update and extension[J]. Head Face Med, 2007,30(3):21.
[19] Massilla Mani F, Sivasubramanian SS . A study of temporoman-dibular joint osteoarthritis using computed tomographic imaging[J]. Biomed J, 2016,39(3):201-206.
[20] Joss CU, Vassalli IM . Stability after bilateral sagittal split osteotomy advancement surgery with rigid internal fixation: a systematic review[J]. J Oral Maxillofac Surg, 2009,67(2):301-313.
[21] Zarb GA, Carlsson GE . Temporomandibular disorders: osteoarthritis[J]. J Orofac Pain, 1999,13(4):295-306.
[22] Hoppenreijs TJ, Stoelinga PJ, Grace KL , et al. Long-term evaluation of patients with progressive condylar resorption following orthognathic surgery[J]. Int J Oral Maxillofac Surg, 1999,28(6):411-418.
[23] Kobayashi T, Izumi N, Kojima T , et al. Progressive condylar resorption after mandibular advancement[J]. Br J Oral Maxillofac Surg, 2012,50(2):176-180.
[24] Hussain AM, Packota G, Major PW , et al. Role of different imaging modalities in assessment of temporomandibular joint erosions and osteophytes: a systematic review[J]. Dentomaxillofac Radiol, 2008,37(2):63-71.
[25] Valladares-Neto J, Cevidanes LH, Rocha WC , et al. TMJ response to mandibular advancement surgery: an overview of risk factors[J]. J Appl Oral Sci, 2014,22(1):2-14.
[26] He Z, Ji H, Du W , et al. Management of condylar resorption before or after orthognathic surgery: a systematic review[J]. J Craniomaxillofac Surg, 2019,47(7):1007-1014.
[27] 秦思思, 雷杰, 傅开元 . 锥形束CT评估颞下颌关节重度骨关节病患者正颌术后髁突骨质再吸收[J]. 现代口腔医学杂志, 2016,30(5):261-265.
[28] Haas Junior OL, Guijarro-Martinez R, de Sousa Gil AP , et al. Hierarchy of surgical stability in orthognathic surgery: overview of systematic reviews[J]. Int J Oral Maxillofac Surg, 2019,48(11):1415-1433.
[29] Bailey L, Cevidanes LH, Proffit WR . Stability and predictability of orthognathic surgery[J]. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop, 2004,126(3):273-277.
[30] Franco AA, Cevidanes LH, Phillips C , et al. Long-term 3-dimensional stability of mandibular advancement surgery[J]. J Oral Maxillofac Surg, 2013,71(9):1588-1597.
[1] Xian-tao SUN,Wei HE,Xiao-jing LIU,Zi-li LI,Xing WANG. Feasibility of Delaire cephalometric analysis to predict the ideal sagittal position of the maxilla and chin for surgery-first patients in orthognathic surgery [J]. Journal of Peking University(Health Sciences), 2020, 52(1): 90-96.
[2] Ran ZHU,Zhao-jun NI,Shun ZHANG,Liang-jun PANG,Chuan-sheng WANG,Yan-ping BAO,Hong-qiang SUN. Effect of clinical characteristics on relapse of alcohol dependence: a prospective cohort study [J]. Journal of Peking University(Health Sciences), 2019, 51(3): 519-524.
[3] Xiu-jing WANG,Yi-mei ZHANG,Yan-heng ZHOU. Orthodontic-orthognathic treatment stability in skeletal class Ⅲ malocclusion patients [J]. Journal of Peking University(Health Sciences), 2019, 51(1): 86-92.
[4] WU Ling, LIU Xiao-jing, LI Zi-li, WANG Xing. Evaluation of accuracy of virtual occlusal definition in Angle class Ⅰ molar relationship [J]. Journal of Peking University(Health Sciences), 2018, 50(1): 154-159.
[5] WANG Zhe, ZHU Liu-ning, ZHOU Lin, YI Biao. Feasibility of integrating 3D photos and cone-beam computed tomography images used to evaluate changes of soft and hard tissue after orthognathic surgery [J]. Journal of Peking University(Health Sciences), 2016, 48(3): 544-549.
[6] HE Ying, GUO Chuan-Bin, DENG Xu-Liang, WANG Xing, WANG Xiao-Xia. Three-dimensional measurement and facial symmetry analysis for the craniofacial structure of people in North China with normal occlusion [J]. Journal of Peking University(Health Sciences), 2015, 47(4): 708-713.
[7] CHEN Shuo, LIU Xiao-Jing, LI Zi-Li, LIANG Cheng, WANG Xiao-Xia, FU Kai-Yuan, YI Biao. Three-dimensional evaluation of condylar morphology remodeling after orthognathic surgery in mandibular retrognathism by cone-beam computed tomography [J]. Journal of Peking University(Health Sciences), 2015, 47(4): 703-707.
Viewed
Full text


Abstract

Cited
  Shared   
  Discussed   
No Suggested Reading articles found!
Copyright © Journal of Peking University (Health Sciences), All Rights Reserved.
Powered by Beijing Magtech Co. Ltd