The Experts below are selected from a list of 273 Experts worldwide ranked by ideXlab platform
Yi Zhang - One of the best experts on this subject based on the ideXlab platform.
-
one stage technique for sagittal split ramus osteotomy combined with mandibular angle ostectomy
Scientific Reports, 2018Co-Authors: Shuo Chen, Yi ZhangAbstract:Bilateral sagittal split ramus osteotomy (BSSRO) is commonly used to correct mandibular prognathism or Retrognathism. Patients with mandibular prognathism or Retrognathism may also present with a prominent mandibular angle. In this paper, we share our experience on BSSRO with mandibular angle resection. Eleven patients who were treated from July 2014 to December 2016 were included in this study. The mandibular angle was resected through the medial side of the mandible after BSSRO. The mandibular angle measurements of the patients changed significantly after surgery (p < 0.05). Unanticipated fractures and mandibular hematoma did not occur. Therefore, BSSRO combined with mandibular angle ostectomy through the medial side of the mandible can be used to safely and effectively correct facial deformity.
-
One-stage technique for sagittal split ramus osteotomy combined with mandibular angle ostectomy
Nature Publishing Group, 2018Co-Authors: Shuo Chen, Yi ZhangAbstract:Abstract Bilateral sagittal split ramus osteotomy (BSSRO) is commonly used to correct mandibular prognathism or Retrognathism. Patients with mandibular prognathism or Retrognathism may also present with a prominent mandibular angle. In this paper, we share our experience on BSSRO with mandibular angle resection. Eleven patients who were treated from July 2014 to December 2016 were included in this study. The mandibular angle was resected through the medial side of the mandible after BSSRO. The mandibular angle measurements of the patients changed significantly after surgery (p
-
The Clinical effecti veness of sequential treatment of skeletal class III malocclusion among patients with maxillary Retrognathism at Jilin Uni versity Stomatological Hos pital, China
Tanzania Dental Journal, 2014Co-Authors: Y Bao, Yi Zhang, Ferdinand Mabula Machibya, Huan Jiang, F WangAbstract:Aim: To assess the dentofacial changes induced by the sequential treatment in the skeletal class III malocclusion with maxillary Retrognathism. Study design: Controlled clinical trial assessing the effectiveness of sequential treatment of skeletal class III malocclusion. Materials and Methods : The treated group consisted of 30 patients in pre or during pubertal growth with anterior crossbite, maxillary crowding and class III molar relationship treated with maxillary protraction therapy; Pendulum appliances to distalize molars followed by fixed appliances. The treated group was compared with a control group of 10 untreated Class III subjects. Cephalometric analysis and Paired sample t test and Independent sample t test were used to evaluate the changes and treatment effects. The significance level was set at p ≤ 0.05. Results: After the sequential treatment, the maxilla moved forward, the mandible rotated clockwise leading to improved maxillomandibular sagittal relationship. The upper incisors moved forward, the anteroposterior relationship improved, and the class III concave profile turned to straight. The cephalometric variables; SNA, MP/SN and U1/SN showed significant changes at p ≤ 0.001, p ≤ 0.01 and p ≤ 0.01 respectively. Conclusion: The sequential treatment approach is effective for skeletal class III malocclusion with maxillary Retrognathism for low and average mandible angle young patients.
Ravi - One of the best experts on this subject based on the ideXlab platform.
-
Assessment of mandibular Retrognathism and maxillary prognathism as contributory factors for skeletal Class II malocclusion: A cephalometric study
International Journal of Oral Health Sciences, 2018Co-Authors: Suraj Prasad Sinha, Krishna U S Nayak, Crystal Runa Soans, P S Murali, Akhil Shetty, RaviAbstract:Aim: The aim of this study is to evaluate the skeletal factor (maxillary excess and/or mandibular deficiency) contributing for the skeletal Class II malocclusion. Materials and Methods: Lateral cephalograms of 100 individuals (50 males and 50 females) in the age group of 18–30 years, having skeletal Class II malocclusion with ANB of more than 4, were evaluated. The parameters to be used for prediction of maxillary prognathism include linear measurement of Nasion perpendicular to point A, and for the mandibular Retrognathism, it is linear measurement of Nasion perpendicular to Pogonion, as suggested by Burstone analysis. Results: The 34% of the studied sample size had the Class II skeletal pattern (ANB >4), but their observed values for the maxilla and the mandible (with respect to the cranium) were in the normal range according to Burstone's cephalometric norms. Mandibular Retrognathism with 68% prevalence in the final studied sample size is the major contributory factor for the skeletal Class II malocclusion which is followed by maxillary prognathism with 27% prevalence in the studied sample size, and the last contributory factor is the combination of the above two which accounts for the 5% of the studied sample size. Conclusion: The cephalometric study of skeletal Class II participants suggests mandibular Retrognathism to be the major component in the given sample size. The other important conclusion from this study is that the ANB angle is not a reliable indicator to assess the skeletal malocclusion.
Shuo Chen - One of the best experts on this subject based on the ideXlab platform.
-
one stage technique for sagittal split ramus osteotomy combined with mandibular angle ostectomy
Scientific Reports, 2018Co-Authors: Shuo Chen, Yi ZhangAbstract:Bilateral sagittal split ramus osteotomy (BSSRO) is commonly used to correct mandibular prognathism or Retrognathism. Patients with mandibular prognathism or Retrognathism may also present with a prominent mandibular angle. In this paper, we share our experience on BSSRO with mandibular angle resection. Eleven patients who were treated from July 2014 to December 2016 were included in this study. The mandibular angle was resected through the medial side of the mandible after BSSRO. The mandibular angle measurements of the patients changed significantly after surgery (p < 0.05). Unanticipated fractures and mandibular hematoma did not occur. Therefore, BSSRO combined with mandibular angle ostectomy through the medial side of the mandible can be used to safely and effectively correct facial deformity.
-
One-stage technique for sagittal split ramus osteotomy combined with mandibular angle ostectomy
Nature Publishing Group, 2018Co-Authors: Shuo Chen, Yi ZhangAbstract:Abstract Bilateral sagittal split ramus osteotomy (BSSRO) is commonly used to correct mandibular prognathism or Retrognathism. Patients with mandibular prognathism or Retrognathism may also present with a prominent mandibular angle. In this paper, we share our experience on BSSRO with mandibular angle resection. Eleven patients who were treated from July 2014 to December 2016 were included in this study. The mandibular angle was resected through the medial side of the mandible after BSSRO. The mandibular angle measurements of the patients changed significantly after surgery (p
Myungjin Kim - One of the best experts on this subject based on the ideXlab platform.
-
comparison of postoperative stability between distraction osteogenesis and bilateral sagittal split ramus osteotomy in mandibular Retrognathism
Maxillofacial plastic and reconstructive surgery, 2012Co-Authors: Myungsu You, Jeeho Lee, Myungjin KimAbstract:Purpose: In general, the surgical treatment for mandibular Retrognathism is represented by two methods, distraction osteogenesis (DO) and mandibular osteotomy surgery. The DO is mostly preferred when the degree of advancement of mandible is large. However, the postoperative stability of mandibular advancement using DO have not been actively investigated. Therefore, in the present study we have compared the postoperative stability between DO and bilateral sagittal split ramus osteotomy (BSSRO) in mandibular Retrognathism. Methods: Seven patients who had been treated by DO and thirteen patients with BSSRO were included in this study. Serial lateral cephalograms were analyzed by manual tracing and the amount of the mandibular elongation was measured. To evaluate the postoperative stability, positional changes of the condylar position and B point were analyzed. Results: Mean amount of mandibular advancement was for BSSRO group and for DO group, respectively. There was no significant difference in age between the two groups (P>0.05). Mean follow up periods were 10.77 months for BSSRO group and 11.28 months for DO group, respectively. After mandibular advancement, mean positional changes in the condyle were horizontally and vertically for BSSRO group and horizontally and vertically for DO group, respectively. Mean change of distance from B point to Y-axis was for BSSRO group and for DO group, respectively. According to the condylar position and B point, there were no significant differences in postoperative stability between the two groups (P>0.05). Conclusion: There was no significant difference in postoperative stability between DO and BSSRO group according to condylar position and B point. Based on the results of the present study, it is hypothesized that DO would be a good treatment choice for severe mandibular Retrognathism because DO could achieve more mandibular advancement and concurrent soft tissue elongation.
Suraj Prasad Sinha - One of the best experts on this subject based on the ideXlab platform.
-
Assessment of mandibular Retrognathism and maxillary prognathism as contributory factors for skeletal Class II malocclusion: A cephalometric study
International Journal of Oral Health Sciences, 2018Co-Authors: Suraj Prasad Sinha, Krishna U S Nayak, Crystal Runa Soans, P S Murali, Akhil Shetty, RaviAbstract:Aim: The aim of this study is to evaluate the skeletal factor (maxillary excess and/or mandibular deficiency) contributing for the skeletal Class II malocclusion. Materials and Methods: Lateral cephalograms of 100 individuals (50 males and 50 females) in the age group of 18–30 years, having skeletal Class II malocclusion with ANB of more than 4, were evaluated. The parameters to be used for prediction of maxillary prognathism include linear measurement of Nasion perpendicular to point A, and for the mandibular Retrognathism, it is linear measurement of Nasion perpendicular to Pogonion, as suggested by Burstone analysis. Results: The 34% of the studied sample size had the Class II skeletal pattern (ANB >4), but their observed values for the maxilla and the mandible (with respect to the cranium) were in the normal range according to Burstone's cephalometric norms. Mandibular Retrognathism with 68% prevalence in the final studied sample size is the major contributory factor for the skeletal Class II malocclusion which is followed by maxillary prognathism with 27% prevalence in the studied sample size, and the last contributory factor is the combination of the above two which accounts for the 5% of the studied sample size. Conclusion: The cephalometric study of skeletal Class II participants suggests mandibular Retrognathism to be the major component in the given sample size. The other important conclusion from this study is that the ANB angle is not a reliable indicator to assess the skeletal malocclusion.