Anterior İskeletsel Açık Kapanışa Sahip Modellerde Ortognatik Model Cerrahisinde İki Farklı Yöntemin Etkinliklerinin Karşılaştırılması

Abstract

Amaç: Bu çalışmanın amacı, ortognatik model cerrahisinde piezoelektrik ve geleneksel yöntemin etkinliğinin karrşılaştırılmasıdır. Gereç ve Yöntemler: Bu çalışmada fantom modeller üzerinde elde edilen alçı modeller kullanılmıştır. Maksiller subapikal osteotomi planlaması yapılan anterior iskeletsel açık kapanış modelleri oluşturulmuş ve 50 maksilla modeli çalışmaya dahil edilmiştir. 25 alçı model piezoelektrik cihazı ile 25 model ise piyasemen cihazı ile subapikal maksiller osteotomi cerrahisi için model cerrahisine hazırlandı. İstatistiksel anlamlılık p<0,05 olarak kabul edildi. Bulgular: Çalışma 2021-2022 tarihleri arasında Van Yüzüncü Yıl Üniversitesi Diş Hekimliği Fakültesi’nde %50’si (n=25) piezo cerrahi, %50’si (n=25) piyasemen yöntemi uygulanan toplam 50 alçı model üzerinde yapılmıştır. Yöntemlere göre alçı üzerinde model kırılması görülme oranları arasında istatistiksel olarak anlamlı farklılık saptanmadı (p>0,05). Piezo cerrahisi uygulanan alçı modelin osteotomi süresi, piyasemen uygulanan alçı modele göre istatistiksel olarak anlamlı düzeyde yüksek saptanmıştır (p=0,001; p<0,01). Piezo cerrahisi uygulanan alçı modelde model kırığına göre osteotomi süreleri arasında istatistiksel olarak anlamlı farklılık saptanmadı (p>0,05). Piyasemen uygulanan alçı modelde model kırığına göre osteotomi süreleri arasında istatistiksel olarak anlamlı farklılık görülmedi (p>0,05). Sonuç: Bu çalışmada cerrahi piyasemen yönteminin işlem süresi açısından piezo cerrahi yönteminden daha hızlı olduğu görüldü.

Keywords

• Piezo cerrahi
• Piezo cerrahi
• Piyasemen
• Piyasemen
• Model cerrahisi
• Model cerrahisi
• Ortodonti
• Ortodonti
• Piezo cerrahi, Piyasemen, Model cerrahisi, Ortodonti

Comparison of the Efficiency of Two Different Methods in Orthognathic Model Surgery in Models with Anterior Skeletal Open Bite

Abstract

Abstract Objective: This study compares the success of the piezoelectric and conventional methodsin orthognathic model surgery. Material and Method: In this study, plaster models obtained on phantom models were used. Anterior skeletal open bite models for maxillary subapical osteotomy planning were created and 50 maxilla models were included in the study. Twenty-five plaster models were prepared for model surgery with a piezoelectric device, and 25 models were prepared for subapical maxillary osteotomy surgery with a handpiece device. Statistical significance was accepted as (p<0.05). Results: The study was carried out on a total of 50 plaster models, 50% (n=25) of which were applied piezo surgery and 50% (n=25) of the handpiece method, at Van Yüzüncü Yıl University Faculty of Dentistry in 2022. According to the methods, no statistically significant difference was found between the incidence of model breakage on plaster (p>0.05). The osteotomy time of the plaster model in which piezosurgery was applied was statistically significantly higher than the plaster model with the handpiece applied (p=0.001; p<0.01). There was no statistically significant difference between osteotomy times in the plaster model with piezosurgery and the model fracture (p>0.05). According to the model fracture, there was no statistically significant difference between osteotomy times in the plaster model applied handpiece (p>0.05). Conclusion: In this study, it was observed that the surgical handpiece method was faster than the piezo surgical method in terms of the procedure time.

Keywords

• handpiece
• piezosurgery
• orthodontics
• model surgery

References

1. Proffit WR, Phillips C, Douvartzidis N. A comparison of outcomes of orthodontic and surgical-orthodontic treatment of class II malocclusion in adults. Am J Orthod Dentofac Orthop. 1992;101(6):556-65.
2. Anwar M, Harris M. Model surgery for orthognathic planning. Br J Oral Maxillofac Surg. 1990;28(6):393-7.
3. Larson BE. Orthodontic preparation for orthognathic surgery. Oral Maxillofac Surg Clin North Am. 2014;26(4):441-58.
4. Lockwood H. A planning technique for segmental osteotomies. Br J Oral Maxillofac Surg. 1974;12(1):102-5.
5. Tsang ACC, Lee ASH, Li WK. Orthognathic model surgery with LEGO key-spacer. J Oral Maxillofac Surg. 2013;71(12):2154. e1-9.
6. Bowley JF, Michaels GC, Lai TW, Lin PP . Reliability of a facebow transfer procedure. J Prosthet Dent. 1992;67(4):491-8.
7. Sharifi A, Jones R, Ayoub A, Moos K, Walker F, Khambay B, vd. How accurate is model planning for orthognathic surgery? Int J Oral Maxillofac Surg. 2008;37(12):1089-93.
8. Robiony M, Polini F, Costa F, Vercellotti T, Politi M. Piezoelectric bone cutting in multipiece maxillary osteotomies. J Oral Maxillofac Surg. 2004;62(6):759-61.

9. Gruber RM, Kramer FJ, Merten HA, Schliephake H. Ultrasonic surgery an alternative way in orthognathic surgery of the mandible; A pilot study. Int J Oral Maxillofac Surg. 2005;34(6):590-3.
10. Rosen HM. Aesthetic orthognathic surgery. Mathes JM Ed. Plastic Surgery, Vol. 2, China: Saunders. 2006:649-86.
11. Bergamo AZN, Andrucioli MCD, Romano FL, Ferreira JTL, Matsumoto MAN. Orthodontic– surgical treatment of class III malocclusion with mandibular asymmetry. Braz Dent J. 2011;(22): 151–56.
12. Guven O. Sınıf III vakalarında ortognatik cerrahi (vaka raporu). Turk J Orth 1998; 1:245–48.
13. Enacar A, Aksoy AÜ. Ortognatik cerrahi uygulanmış vakalarda profil değişiklikleri. Turk J Orth. 1988; 1:80–9.
14. Olmez H, Sağdıç D, Bengi O, Şengün O. İskeletsel sınıf III olgularda ortognatik cerrahi (iki olgu nedeniyle). Turk J Orth. 1994; 7:213–16.
15. Gosain AK. Plastic Surgery Educational Foundation DATA Committee. Distraction osteogenesis of the craniofacial skeleton. Plast Reconstr Surg. 2001;107(1):278-280.
16. Bong Chul K, Chae Eun L, Wonse P, Moon-Key K, Piao Z, Hyung-Seog Y ve ark. Clinical experiences of digital model surgery and the rapidprototyped wafer for maxillary orthognathic surgery, Oral Surg Oral Med Oral Pathol Oral Radiol Endod. 2010.
17. Profitt WR, White RP , Sarver DM. Contemporary Treatment of Dentofacial Deformity. 2002. ISBN 0-323-01697-9.
18. Baek SH, Kang SJ, Bell WH, Chu S, Kim HK. Fabrication a surgical wafer splint by three-dimensional virtual model surgery. Bell WH, Guerrero: 80 Distraction osteogenesis of the facial skeleton. Hamilton: BC Decker Inc. 2007:115–30.
19. Ghanai S, Marmulla R, Wiechnik J, Mühling J, Kotrikova B. Computer-assisted three dimensional surgical planning: 3D virtual articulator: technical note. Dent J Oral Maxillofac. 2010:39:75-82.