We have located links that may give you full text access.
Does Maxillomandibular Fixation Technique Affect Occlusion Quality in Segmental LeFort I Osteotomy?
Journal of Oral and Maxillofacial Surgery 2024 March 14
BACKGROUND: Segmental maxillary osteotomies require precise occlusal control due to variability in individual segment positioning. The role of maxillomandibular fixation (MMF) technique on occlusal control has not been validated.
PURPOSE: The purpose is to measure and compare the accuracy of occlusal positioning among MMF techniques.
STUDY DESIGN, SETTING, SAMPLE: This was a double-blinded in vitro study on experiment models to simulate a 3-piece LeFort I osteotomy. The models were constricted posteriorly and expanded using 3 different MMF techniques and compared to the unaltered baseline occlusion. Based on sample size calculation, 32 separate attempts were made for each MMF technique.
PREDICTOR VARIABLE: The predictor variable was MMF technique (brackets, MMF screws, and embrasure wires).
MAIN OUTCOME VARIABLES: The primary outcome variable was the visual occlusal analysis score, a 1.00 to 4.00 continuous scale measuring the similarity of the achieved occlusion to the planned (control) occlusion assessed by an oral and maxillofacial surgeon and an orthodontist. High visual occlusal analysis score indicated greater occlusal accuracy, with 3.50 defined as the threshold for accuracy. The secondary outcome variable was the linear error of the achieved occlusion at the canine and first molar teeth, with lower error indicating greater accuracy. An a priori accuracy threshold of 0.5 mm was set for this variable.
COVARIATES: None.
ANALYSES: Kruskal-Wallis test with post hoc testing was used to analyze the difference in the outcome variables of interest. P value < .05 was considered statistically significant.
RESULTS: Thirty-two attempts for each technique showed that brackets had higher VAOS than MMF screws and embrasure wires (median differences 1.49 and 0.48, P < .001), and had lower linear occlusal error (median differences 0.35 to 0.99 mm, P < .001).
CONCLUSION AND RELEVANCE: MMF technique influences the quality of occlusal control, with greater visual rating scores and lower linear errors seen with brackets than with embrasure wires or MMF screws.
PURPOSE: The purpose is to measure and compare the accuracy of occlusal positioning among MMF techniques.
STUDY DESIGN, SETTING, SAMPLE: This was a double-blinded in vitro study on experiment models to simulate a 3-piece LeFort I osteotomy. The models were constricted posteriorly and expanded using 3 different MMF techniques and compared to the unaltered baseline occlusion. Based on sample size calculation, 32 separate attempts were made for each MMF technique.
PREDICTOR VARIABLE: The predictor variable was MMF technique (brackets, MMF screws, and embrasure wires).
MAIN OUTCOME VARIABLES: The primary outcome variable was the visual occlusal analysis score, a 1.00 to 4.00 continuous scale measuring the similarity of the achieved occlusion to the planned (control) occlusion assessed by an oral and maxillofacial surgeon and an orthodontist. High visual occlusal analysis score indicated greater occlusal accuracy, with 3.50 defined as the threshold for accuracy. The secondary outcome variable was the linear error of the achieved occlusion at the canine and first molar teeth, with lower error indicating greater accuracy. An a priori accuracy threshold of 0.5 mm was set for this variable.
COVARIATES: None.
ANALYSES: Kruskal-Wallis test with post hoc testing was used to analyze the difference in the outcome variables of interest. P value < .05 was considered statistically significant.
RESULTS: Thirty-two attempts for each technique showed that brackets had higher VAOS than MMF screws and embrasure wires (median differences 1.49 and 0.48, P < .001), and had lower linear occlusal error (median differences 0.35 to 0.99 mm, P < .001).
CONCLUSION AND RELEVANCE: MMF technique influences the quality of occlusal control, with greater visual rating scores and lower linear errors seen with brackets than with embrasure wires or MMF screws.
Full text links
Related Resources
Trending Papers
Revascularization Strategy in Myocardial Infarction with Multivessel Disease.Journal of Clinical Medicine 2024 March 27
Intravenous infusion of dexmedetomidine during the surgery to prevent postoperative delirium and postoperative cognitive dysfunction undergoing non-cardiac surgery: a meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials.European Journal of Medical Research 2024 April 19
The Tricuspid Valve: A Review of Pathology, Imaging, and Current Treatment Options: A Scientific Statement From the American Heart Association.Circulation 2024 April 26
Consensus Statement on Vitamin D Status Assessment and Supplementation: Whys, Whens, and Hows.Endocrine Reviews 2024 April 28
Management of Diverticulitis: A Review.JAMA Surgery 2024 April 18
Interstitial Lung Disease: A Review.JAMA 2024 April 23
Get seemless 1-tap access through your institution/university
For the best experience, use the Read mobile app
All material on this website is protected by copyright, Copyright © 1994-2024 by WebMD LLC.
This website also contains material copyrighted by 3rd parties.
By using this service, you agree to our terms of use and privacy policy.
Your Privacy Choices
You can now claim free CME credits for this literature searchClaim now
Get seemless 1-tap access through your institution/university
For the best experience, use the Read mobile app