Comparison of Different Fixation Methods for Stabilization in 10 mm Mandibular Advancement Using Sagittal Split Ramus Osteotomy: A Finite Element Analysis

Year 2025, Volume: 12 Issue: 3, 357 - 362, 29.12.2025

Özgün Mehmet İnan , İnci Karaca

https://doi.org/10.15311/selcukdentj.1735752

Abstract

BACKGROUND:
Sagittal split ramus osteotomy (SSRO) is a common orthognathic procedure for mandibular advancements. Proper segment positioning and rigid fixation are crucial for optimal outcomes. Various fixation techniques have been proposed to enhance stability. While most studies focus on 5 mm and 7 mm advancements, larger advancements pose a greater risk of horizontal relapse. Despite this, 10 mm advancements are increasingly performed in oral and maxillofacial surgery (OMFS). This study evaluates the stability and biomechanical properties of different fixation methods in 10 mm mandibular advancements to determine the most effective technique.
METHODS:
Eight finite element models were developed, incorporating bicortical screws, monocortical screws, plates, and hybrid fixation techniques. A 140 N vertical force was applied to the first molar, and displacements were analyzed using finite element analysis (FEA).
RESULTS:
The least displacement was observed with two 4-hole miniplates, while the highest occurred with two upper bicortical screws. Hybrid fixation showed greater stability than single-plate systems.
CONCLUSION:
The most reliable method for 10 mm advancements is two miniplates at the upper and lower borders. However, hybrid systems supported by a bicortical screw placed at the upper border can also provide sufficient stability.
KEYWORDS: 10 mm mandibular advancement, fixation, finite element analysis, sagittal split ramus osteotomy

Keywords

10 mm mandibular advancement , fixation , finite element analysis , sagittal split ramus osteotomy

Ethical Statement

This study does not involve human participants, human data, or animal subjects; therefore, ethical approval was not required.

Supporting Institution

None

Thanks

I would like to express my sincere gratitude to Prof. Dr. Doğan Dolanmaz for his valuable contributions to the planning and execution of this study.

References

• 1. Miloro M, Peterson LJ. Peterson’s Principles of Oral and Maxillofacial Surgery. 3rd ed. Shelton (CT): People’s Medical Publishing House-USA; 2012.
• 2. Fonseca RJ, ed. Oral and Maxillofacial Surgery. St. Louis (MO): Elsevier; 2014. p. 1-325.
• 3. Sato FRL, Asprino L, de Moraes M, Moreira RW, de Moraes M. A comparative evaluation of the hybrid technique for fixation of the sagittal split ramus osteotomy in mandibular advancement by mechanical, photoelastic, and finite element analysis. Oral Surg Oral Med Oral Pathol Oral Radiol. 2012;114(5):S60-8.
• 4. Erkmen E, Simşek B, Yücel E, Kurt A. Comparison of different fixation methods following sagittal split ramus osteotomies using three-dimensional finite elements analysis: Part 1: advancement surgery-posterior loading. Int J Oral Maxillofac Surg. 2005;34(5):551-8.
• 5. Erkmen E, Simşek B, Yücel E, Kurt A. Three-dimensional finite element analysis used to compare methods of fixation after sagittal split ramus osteotomy: setback surgery-posterior loading. Br J Oral Maxillofac Surg. 2005;43(2):97-104.
• 6. Pereira Filho VA, Okamoto R, Gabrielli MA, Gabrielli MF, Hochuli-Vieira E. In vitro biomechanical evaluation of sagittal split osteotomy fixation with a specifically designed miniplate. Int J Oral Maxillofac Surg. 2013;42(3):316-20.
• 7. Sato FRL, Asprino L, de Moraes M, Moreira RW, de Moraes M. Comparison of five different fixation techniques of sagittal split ramus osteotomy using three-dimensional finite elements analysis. Int J Oral Maxillofac Surg. 2012;41(8):934-41.
• 8. Joss CU, Vassalli IM. Stability after bilateral sagittal split osteotomy advancement surgery with rigid internal fixation: a systematic review. J Oral Maxillofac Surg. 2009;67(2):301-13.
• 9. Aymach Z, Al-Ahmad HT, Khattab TZ, Abou-Rabii I. Biomechanical evaluation of a T-shaped miniplate fixation of a modified sagittal split ramus osteotomy with buccal step, a new technique for mandibular orthognathic surgery. Oral Surg Oral Med Oral Pathol Oral Radiol Endod. 2011;111(1):58-63.
• 10. Kuik K, van den Broek T, van Bakelen N, de Lange J, Rosenberg A. Stability of fixation methods in large mandibular advancements after sagittal split ramus osteotomy: an in vitro biomechanical study. J Oral Maxillofac Surg. 2020;78(10):e3-4.
• 11. Cho HJ. Long-term stability of surgical mandibular setback. Angle Orthod. 2007;77(5):851-6.
• 12. Maurer P, Schubert J, Ehrenfeld M, Gutwald R. Study by finite element method of the mechanical stress of selected biodegradable osteosynthesis screws in sagittal ramus osteotomy. Br J Oral Maxillofac Surg. 2002;40(1):76-83.
• 13. Harada K, Shimizu N, Abiko Y, Hoshina S. Measure of bite force and occlusal contact area before and after bilateral sagittal split ramus osteotomy of the mandible using a new pressure-sensitive device: a preliminary report. J Oral Maxillofac Surg. 2000;58(4):370-3.
• 14. Ellis E 3rd, Hinton RJ. Histologic examination of the temporomandibular joint after mandibular advancement with and without rigid fixation: an experimental investigation in adult Macaca mulatta. J Oral Maxillofac Surg. 1991;49(12):1316-27.
• 15. Ingervall B, Thilander B. Relation between facial morphology and activity of the masticatory muscles. J Oral Rehabil. 1979;6(3):205-13.
• 16. Sigua-Rodriguez EA, da Costa DJ, Koerich L, da Silva LC, Ramos AL. Comparative evaluation of different fixation techniques for sagittal split ramus osteotomy in 10 mm advancements. Part two: finite element analysis. J Craniomaxillofac Surg. 2019;47(7):1015-9.
• 17. Sato FRL, Asprino L, de Moraes M, Moreira RW, de Moraes M. Comparative biomechanical and photoelastic evaluation of different fixation techniques of sagittal split ramus osteotomy in mandibular advancement. J Oral Maxillofac Surg. 2010;68(1):160-6.
• 18. Al-Moraissi EA, Al-Hendi E. Are bicortical screw and plate osteosynthesis techniques equal in providing skeletal stability with the bilateral sagittal split osteotomy when used for mandibular advancement surgery? A systematic review and meta-analysis. Int J Oral Maxillofac Surg. 2016;45(10):1195-200.
• 19. Watzke IM, Turvey TA, Phillips C, Proffit WR. Stability of mandibular advancement after sagittal osteotomy with screw or wire fixation: a comparative study. J Oral Maxillofac Surg. 1990;48(2):108-21.
• 20. Assael LA, Beirne OR, Dodson TB, Quinn PD, Posnick JC. Stable internal fixation of osteotomies of the facial skeleton. In: Spiessl B, ed. Manual of Internal Fixation in the Cranio-Facial Skeleton: Techniques Recommended by the AO/ASIF Maxillofacial Group. New York: Springer; 1998. p. 185-98.
• 21. Ochs MW. Bicortical screw stabilization of sagittal split osteotomies. J Oral Maxillofac Surg. 2003;61(12):1477-84.
• 22. Ribeiro-Junior PD, Magro-Filho O, de Oliveira Neto PJ, de Souza FAC, Shastri KA. In vitro biomechanical evaluation of the use of conventional and locking miniplate/screw systems for sagittal split ramus osteotomy. J Oral Maxillofac Surg. 2010;68(4):724-30.
• 23. Oguz Y, Uckan S, Erkan M, Erol B. In vitro biomechanical comparison of six different fixation methods following 5-mm sagittal split advancement osteotomies. Int J Oral Maxillofac Surg. 2015;44(8):984-8.
• 24. Verweij JP, Gooris PJJ, Mensink G, Becking AG. Risk factors for common complications associated with bilateral sagittal split osteotomy: a literature review and meta-analysis. J Craniomaxillofac Surg. 2016;44(9):1170-80.
• 25. Brasileiro BF, Vasconcelos BC, Bessa-Nogueira RV. An in vitro evaluation of rigid internal fixation techniques for sagittal split ramus osteotomies: advancement surgery. J Oral Maxillofac Surg. 2009;67(4):809-17.
• 26. Sato FRL, Asprino L, de Moraes M, Moreira RW, de Moraes M. Comparison of postoperative stability of three rigid internal fixation techniques after sagittal split ramus osteotomy for mandibular advancement. J Craniomaxillofac Surg. 2014;42(5):e224-9.
• 27. Klein G, Fragiskos D, Figueiredo DS, Pastore GP, da Costa DJ. Biomechanical evaluation of different osteosynthesis methods after mandibular sagittal split osteotomy in major advancements. Int J Oral Maxillofac Surg. 2017;46(11):1387-93.