Abstract
An unfavourable and unanticipated pattern of the mandibular sagittal split osteotomy is generally referred to as a ‘bad split’. Few restorative techniques to manage the situation have been described. In this article, a classification of reported bad split pattern types is proposed and appropriate salvage procedures to manage the different types of undesired fracture are presented. A systematic review was undertaken, yielding a total of 33 studies published between 1971 and 2015. These reported a total of 458 cases of bad splits among 19,527 sagittal ramus osteotomies in 10,271 patients. The total reported incidence of bad split was 2.3% of sagittal splits. The most frequently encountered were buccal plate fractures of the proximal segment (types 1A–F) and lingual fractures of the distal segment (types 2A and 2B). Coronoid fractures (type 3) and condylar neck fractures (type 4) have seldom been reported. The various types of bad split may require different salvage approaches.
Segmenting the mandible in an orthognathic procedure to reposition the tooth-bearing part is generally known as a bilateral sagittal split osteotomy (BSSO). Historically, different ways of splitting the mandible have been advocated. The Trauner and Obwegeser technique (1955), the Dal Pont modification (1961), and the Hunsuck modification (1968) are the best documented. Various approaches, splitting techniques, and instruments have been advocated to reduce complications over the years since Hugo Obwegeser reported the operation in 1955. Despite these improvements, the procedure remains technically challenging in some cases. Intraoperative complications include nerve injury, bleeding, and mechanical problems, such as irregular split patterns. An unfavourable and unanticipated pattern of the mandibular osteotomy fracture is generally referred to as a ‘bad split’. Incidences of 0.2% up to 14.6% per split site have been reported.
Bad splits may cause mechanical instability, a disturbance in bony union, and lead to bone sequestration with subsequent infection. In addition, it has been proposed that temporomandibular joint (TMJ) dysfunction and inferior alveolar nerve damage may arise due to excessive intraoperative manipulation in an attempt to reposition the fractured segments, and that subsequent difficulty in positioning the condyle in the glenoid fossa may increase the risk of relapse. In order to reduce the risk of postoperative functional deficits, fractured split segments are best fixated and reconsolidated. However, few restorative techniques to manage the situation have been described.
The aim of this article is to review unfavourable split pattern types reported in the literature, and to present appropriate salvage procedures to manage the different types of undesired fracture.
Materials and methods
Systematic review
A systematic review was undertaken, which is reported in accordance with the PRISMA Statement.
Eligibility criteria
All retrospective and prospective studies of unwanted splits in BSSO procedures, with or without control groups, were included. There were no restrictions.
Information sources and search
An electronic search without date or language restrictions was undertaken on 12 August 2015, in the online databases PubMed (all indexed years), Web of Science (Science Citation Index Expanded; 1975 to present (v. 5.13.1)), the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, and the World Health Organization International Clinical Trials Registry Platform, using the strategy outlined in Table 1 .
Database | Search terms |
---|---|
PubMed (all indexed years) | (orthogn* OR (sagittal AND (ramus OR split))) AND (bad OR unfavo* OR undesired OR unwanted OR unexpect* OR complic* OR irregular) |
Web of Science, Science Citation Index Expanded 1975 to present (v.5.13.1) | #1: TS = (sagittal AND osteotomy) #2: WC = (Dentistry, Oral Surgery & Medicine) #3: #1 AND #2 |
Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials | Sagittal osteotomy |
WHO International Clinical Trials Registry Platform | Split osteotomy OR ramus osteotomy [Recruitment status: ALL] |
Trial selection
After assessing the eligibility of the articles in a standardized manner by reading the titles and abstracts, selected articles were retrieved and the full-texts read to screen for eligibility.
Data extraction and collection
A data extraction sheet was developed. For each of the articles identified and included in this study, the following data were extracted: (1) author and year of publication, (2) study design, (3) surgical technique, (4) number of patients who underwent BSSO, (5) number of patients who underwent concomitant third molar removal, (6) number of patients who had no third molars present at surgery, (7) patient age statistics, (8) number of split sites, number of bad splits, and the unwanted split pattern types per patient and per split site. Summary outcome data were entered into Review Manager software (RevMan version 5.2; Cochrane Collaboration, 2012).
The development of the search strategy, study selection, and data collection were performed by one author (SAS).
Results
The initial search yielded a total of 2062 citations ( Fig. 1 ). After the primary screening process, 33 full-text reports were read for detailed examination. No articles needed to be excluded after secondary review. The eligibility criteria were met by a total of 33 reports; these included 15 retrospective chart reviews, nine retrospective cohort studies, six prospective cohort studies, one cross-sectional study, one matched-pair analysis, and one case report ( Table 2 ).
Author | Study design | Technique | No. of patients | Patient age, mean/median and range (years) | No. of splits | Bad split occurrence | Incidence per patient (%) | Incidence per split side (%) | Bad split types specified | |||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Type 1 Proximal | Type 2 Distal | Type 3 Coronoid | Type 4 Condylar | |||||||||
Guernsey and DeChamplain 1971 | Retrospective chart review | Obwegeser | 22 | 21.9 (15–32) | 44 | 5 | 22.7% | 11.4% | 2 | 3 (1 greenstick fracture) |
0 | 0 |
Behrman 1972 | Cross-sectional survey | Obwegeser | ∼600 | – | – | – (10/64 surgeons reported having ever had a bad split) |
– | – | – | – | – | – |
Jönsson et al., 1979 | Prospective cohort study | Dal Pont modification | 28 | – | 56 | 5 | 17.9% | 8.9% | 5 (2 type 1B/1C and 3 type 1D) |
0 | 0 | 0 |
MacIntosh 1981 | Retrospective chart review | Dal Pont modification | 236 | 25 (13–53) | 472 | 16 | 6.8% | 3.4% | – (type 1C/1D/1A/1F) |
– (type 2B) |
– | – |
Martis 1984 | Retrospective chart review | Dal Pont modification | 258 | 20 (14–40) | 516 | 5 | 1.9% | 1.0% | 4 | 1 | 0 | 0 |
Turvey 1985 | Retrospective cohort study | Dal Pont modification | 128 | 25.7 (6–56) | 256 | 9 | 7.0% | 3.5% | 8 | 1 | – | – |
Van Merkesteyn et al., 1987 | Retrospective chart review | Obwegeser (1)/Dal Pont modification (62) | 63 | 25.1 (15–59) | 126 | 5 | 7.9% | 4.0% | 5 (type 1D) |
0 | 0 | 0 |
Mommaerts 1992 | Case reports | Obwegeser | 96 | 17, 25 | 192 | 2 | 2.1% | 1.0% | 1 (type 1D) |
– | – | 1 |
Tucker and Wolford 1995 | Retrospective chart review | – | 207 | – | 400 | 21 | 10.1% | 5.3% | – | – | – | – |
Van de Perre et al., 1996 | Retrospective chart review | Dal Pont modification and Hunsuck modification | 1233 | – | 2466 | 97 | 7.9% | 3.9% | “the majority” | – | – | – |
Precious et al., 1998 | Retrospective cohort study | Duguet (Duguet et al., 1987) (group 1: M3 present; group 2: M3 removed >6 months preop.) | 633 | 24.4 (12–57) | 1256 (532 in group 1; 724 in group 2) |
24 (5 in group 1; 19 in group 2) |
3.8% | 1.9% | 15 (type 1B/1C) |
9 | 0 | 0 |
Akhtar and Tuinzing 1999 | Retrospective chart review | Hunsuck modification | – | – | 2820 | 6 | – | 0.2% | – | – | – | – |
Acebal-Bianco et al., 2000 | Retrospective chart review | Dal Pont–Hunsuck–Simpson–Epker modification (Epker 1977; Simpson 1972) | 802 | 23 (13–73) | 1584 | 8 | 1.0% | 0.5% | 6 | 1 | 1 | 0 |
Maurer et al., 2001 | Retrospective chart review | Dal Pont modification | 336 | – | 672 | 34 | 10.1% | 5.1% | – | – | – | – |
Mehra et al., 2001 | Retrospective cohort study | Wolford (Wolford et al., 1987; Wolford and Davis 1990) (group 1: concomitant M3 removal; group 2: M3 removed >12 months preop.) | 262 (137 in group 1; 125 in group 2) |
17.7 (13–44) in group 1 36.6 (17–56) in group 2 |
500 (250 in group 1; 250 in group 2) |
11 (8 in group 1; 3 in group 2) | 4.2% | 2.2% | 1 (group 1; type 1C) 3 (group 2; type 1C) |
7 (group 1; type 2A) |
0 | 0 |
Panula et al., 2001 | Retrospective chart review | – | 515 | 30.3 (15–60) | 1030 | 12 | 2.3% | 1.2% | – | – | – | – |
Reyneke et al., 2002 | Prospective cohort study | – | 70 | 23.3 (13–49) | 139 | 5 | 7.1% | 3.6% | 1 | 4 | 0 | 0 |
Borstlap et al., 2004 | Prospective cohort study | Hunsuck modification (group 1: concomitant M3 removal; group 2: M3 not present at surgery) |
222 | 25.2 (13–53) | 444 (123 in group 1; 321 in group 2) |
20 (8 in group 1; 12 in group 2) |
9.0% | 4.5% | 0 (group 1) 8 (group 2) |
8 (group 1) 4 (group 2) |
0 | 0 |
Teltzrow et al., 2005 | Retrospective chart review | Obwegeser | 1264 | 14–53 | – | 12 | 0.9% | – | 6 | 1 | 3 | 2 |
Kim and Park 2007 | Retrospective chart review | – | 238 | – | 474 | 11 | 4.6% | 2.3% | – | – | – | – |
Kriwalsky et al., 2008 | Retrospective cohort study | Dal Pont modification (group 1: M3 removed >12 months preop.; group 2: M3 concomitantly removed; group 3: M3 present at surgery and left in place) |
110 | 26 (17–60) in group 1 22 (17–39) in group 2 26 (17–60) in group 3 (35.0 (21–60) in the bad split group; 24.6 (17–46) in the regular split group) |
220 (168 in group 1; 23 in group 2; 29 in group 3) |
12 (9 in group 1; 2 in group 2; 1 in group 3) |
10.9% | 5.5% | – | – | – | – |
Veras et al., 2008 | Matched-pair analysis | Dal Pont modification | Selection of patients from Kriwalsky et al., 2008 | 30.7 (22–43) | – | – | – | – | 6 | 1 | – | – |
Falter et al., 2010 | Retrospective chart review | Epker modification (Epker 1977) | 1008 | 33.1 (21–61) in the bad split group 25.9 (16–61) in the regular split group |
2005 | 14 | 1.4% | 0.7% | 13 | 1 | 0 | 0 |
Doucet et al., 2012 | Prospective cohort study | Duguet (Duguet et al., 1987) (group 1: concomitant M3 removal; group 2: M3 removed >6 months preop.) |
60 | 19.3 in group 1 24.9 in group 2 |
120 (64 in group 1; 56 in group 2) |
4 (2 in group 1; 2 in group 2) |
6.7% | 3.3% | 0 | 4 | 0 | 0 |
Gilles et al., 2013 | Prospective cohort study | Piezotome surgery Hunsuck modification |
54 | – | 102 | 0 | 0.0% | 0.0% | – | – | – | – |
Mensink et al., 2013 | Retrospective chart review | Hunsuck modification | 427 | 29 (15–54) | 851 | 17 | 4.0% | 2.0% | 11 (1C/1E) |
5 | 0 | 1 |
Aarabi et al., 2014 | Retrospective cohort study | Epker modification (Epker 1977) | 48 | 21.8 in the group with bad splits 26.6 in the group without bad splits |
96 | 14 | 29.2% | 14.6% | – | – | – | – |
Al-Nawas et al., 2014 | Retrospective cohort study | Group A: Epker modification (Epker 1977) Group B: Dal Pont modification |
400 (214 in group A; 186 in group B) |
26.5 (14–68) | 800 | 43 (16 in group A; 27 in group B) |
10.8% | 5.4% | – | – | – | – |
Verweij et al., 2014 | Retrospective cohort study | Hunsuck modification (group 1: concomitant M3 removal; group 2: M3 removed >6 months preop.) |
259 | 27.7 (13–55) | 502 (169 in group 1; 333 in group 2) |
10 (5 in group 1; 5 in group 2) |
3.9% | 2.0% | – | – | – | – |
Balaji 2014 | Retrospective chart review | – | 208 | 21.53 (17–27) | 416 | 27 (25 greenstick fractures) |
13.0% | 6.5% | 0 | 27 | 0 | 0 |
Landes et al., 2014 | Retrospective cohort study | Piezotome surgery Landes modification (Landes et al., 2008) |
29 | 26.5 | 58 | 4 | 13.8% | 6.9% | – | – | – | – |
Politis et al., 2014 | Prospective cohort study | Group A: Epker modification (Epker 1977) Group B: own technique |
353 (220 in group A; 133 in group B) |
– | 706 (440 in group A; 266 in group B) |
2 (0 in group A; 2 in group B) |
0.6% | 0.3% | – | – | – | – |
Camargo et al., 2015 | Retrospective cohort study | Jeter modification (Jeter et al., 1984) (group 1: concomitant M3 removal; group 2: M3 removed earlier) |
102 (10 in group 1; 92 in group 2) |
41 (30–68) | 204 | 3 (1 in group 1; 2 in group 2) |
2.9% | 1.5% | 1 (group 1) 1 (group 2) |
1 (group 1) 1 (group 2) |
0 | 0 |
Total | 10,271 | 19,527 | 458 | 4.5% overall | 2.3% overall | 97 | 79 | 4 | 4 |