Article Sidebar

PDF
Issue: Vol. 563 No. 3 (2026)
Section: Các bài báo
DOI: 10.51298/vmj.v563i3.19166
Date Published: 08/10/2026
Views 0
Downloads 0
How to Cite
Lê, T. H., Trần, Á. K., Nguyễn, M. H., & Nguyễn, H. K. (2026). ASSESSMENT OF MANDIBULAR RAMUS POSITIONAL CHANGES AFTER MANDIBULAR SETBACK USING BILATERAL SAGITTAL SPLIT OSTEOTOMY. Vietnam Medical Journal, 563(3). https://doi.org/10.51298/vmj.v563i3.19166

ASSESSMENT OF MANDIBULAR RAMUS POSITIONAL CHANGES AFTER MANDIBULAR SETBACK USING BILATERAL SAGITTAL SPLIT OSTEOTOMY

Tấn Hùng Lê1, , Ái Khiêm Trần2, Mỹ Huyền Nguyễn1, Hoàng Khang Nguyễn1
1 Trường Y Dược - Đại học Trà Vinh
2 Trường Đại học Quốc tế Hồng Bàng

Main Article Content

Abstract

Objective: To evaluate changes in distal segment position and proximal segment rotation after mandibular setback using bilateral sagittal split osteotomy, and to analyze correlations between surgical movement, immediate proximal segment rotation, and skeletal relapse after 6 months.


Methods: A retrospective study was conducted using CBCT-generated lateral cephalometric images of 34 patients who underwent mandibular setback with BSSO, with or without Le Fort I osteotomy, at T0, T1 and T2.


Results: The mean setback at point B was 8.28 ± 4.21 mm. The immediate mean posterior rotation of the proximal segment was 2.53 ± 3.59 degrees. At 6 months, mean distal segment relapse at point B was 0.79 ± 3.52 mm and mean proximal segment relapse was 0.79 ± 1.77 degrees. Significant correlations were found between surgical movement and immediate proximal segment rotation, and between surgical movement and distal segment relapse.


Conclusion: Immediate posterior rotation of the proximal segment had a limited effect on mandibular relapse, whereas the amount of surgical movement was more clearly related to distal segment relapse.

Keywords

BSSO, mandibular setback, mandibular relapse, proximal segment rotation, ramus rotation

Article Details

References

Eggensperger N, Raditsch T, Taghizadeh F, Iizuka T (2005) Mandibular setback by sagittal split ramus osteotomy: a 12-year follow-up. Acta Odontol Scand 63(3):183-188. https://doi.org/10.1080/00016350510019892.
2. De Villa GH, Huang C-S, Chen PK, Chen Y-R (2005) Bilateral sagittal split osteotomy for correction of mandibular prognathism: long-term results. J Oral Maxillofac Surg 63(11):1584-1592. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.joms.2005.03.031.
3. Han JJ, Yang HJ, Lee S-J, Hwang SJ (2014) Relapse after SSRO for mandibular setback movement in relation to the amount of mandibular setback and intraoperative clockwise rotation of the proximal segment. J Cranio Maxillofac Surg 42(6):811-815. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jcms.2013.11.018.
4. Yang HJ, Hwang SJ (2014) Contributing factors to intraoperative clockwise rotation of the proximal segment as a relapse factor after mandibular setback with sagittal split ramus osteotomy. J Cranio Maxillofac Surg 42(4):e57-e63.
5. Cho HJ (2007) Long-term stability of surgical mandibular setback. Angle Orthod 77(5):851-856. https://doi.org/10.2319/052306-209.1.
6. Choi B-J, Lee B-S, Kwon Y-D, Lee J-W, Yun S-U, Ryu K-S et al. (2018) Correlation between intraoperative proximal segment rotation and post-sagittal split ramus osteotomy relapse: a three-dimensional cone beam computed tomography study. Int J Oral Maxillofac Surg 47(5):613-621. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijom.2017.10.014.
7. Chen K-J, Chen Y-C, Cheng J-H, Chen C-M, Tseng Y-C (2018) Factors related to skeletal relapse in the two-jaw surgery treatment of mandibular prognathism. J Stomatol Oral Maxillofac Surg 119(2):113-117. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jormas.2017.11.013.
8. Sam A, Currie K, Oh H, Flores-Mir C, Lagravère-Vich M (2019) Reliability of different three-dimensional cephalometric landmarks in cone-beam computed tomography: a systematic review. Angle Orthod 89(2):317-332. https://doi.org/10.2319/042018-302.1.