Moving the mandible in orthognathic surgery - A multicenter analysis

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

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.

Bibliografische Daten

OriginalspracheEnglisch
ISSN1010-5182
DOIs
StatusVeröffentlicht - 05.2016
PubMed 27017103