Bilateral sagittal split ramus osteotomy using a conventional osteotome-hammer and a magnetic mallet device: An in vitro comparison

Basit Öğe Kaydı
dc.authorid0009-0004-7718-1011
dc.authorid0000-0002-1466-5869
dc.authorid0000-0003-1077-7342
dc.contributor.authorGençer, R. Çağrı
dc.contributor.authorÖzel, Abdullah
dc.contributor.authorUçkan, İbrahim Sina
dc.date.accessioned2023-07-11T08:41:57Z
dc.date.available2023-07-11T08:41:57Z
dc.date.issued2023
dc.departmentİstanbul Medipol Üniversitesi, Diş Hekimliği Fakültesi, Ağız, Diş ve Çene Cerrahisi Ana Bilim Dalı
dc.description.abstractOBJECTIVE: The conventional chisel osteotome technique (CCOT) and the magnetic mallet osteotome technique (MMOT) with a newly manufactured custom osteotome tip for the magnetic mallet device (MMD) were compared to determine whether magneto-dynamic osteotomies are as reliable for orthognathic surgery as the conventional method. MATERIALS AND METHODS: A custom osteotome tip compatible with a magnetic mallet device was manufactured. Thirty-two fresh 1-year-old sheep hemi-mandibles were chosen for osteotomy procedures to achieve the most human-like results. Sagittal split ramus osteotomies were performed, and lingual fracture pattern (LFP), basis split pattern (BSS), duration of sagittal split osteotomy, and alveolar inferior nerve injury were investigated macroscopically. RESULTS: Six of the defined fracture schemes were observed out of the 27 lingual split patterns. After LFP and BSS evaluation, the unfavorable fracture counts for MMOT and CCOT are 3 and 4, respectively. The macroscopic nerve damage assessment for both groups is 2 for MMOT and 1 for CCOT. Although the average durations are similar in both groups, the difference between MMOT samples is closer. None above showed a significant difference. CONCLUSIONS: MMOT was evaluated as a reliable alternative to CCOT in bilateral sagittal split ramus osteotomy based on the lingual and basis split patterns, duration, and nerve damage findings.
dc.identifier.citationGençer, R. Ç., Özel, A. ve Uçkan, İ. S. (2023). Bilateral sagittal split ramus osteotomy using a conventional osteotome-hammer and a magnetic mallet device: An in vitro comparison. European Review for Medical and Pharmacological Sciences, 27(4), 58-65. https://dx.doi.org/10.26355/eurrev_202307_32745
dc.identifier.doi10.26355/eurrev_202307_32745
dc.identifier.endpage65
dc.identifier.issn1128-3602
dc.identifier.issn2284-0729
dc.identifier.issue4
dc.identifier.pmid37350690
dc.identifier.scopus2-s2.0-85162825403
dc.identifier.scopusqualityQ2
dc.identifier.startpage58
dc.identifier.urihttps://dx.doi.org/10.26355/eurrev_202307_32745
dc.identifier.urihttps://hdl.handle.net/20.500.12511/11180
dc.identifier.volume27
dc.identifier.wos001011478000006en_US
dc.identifier.wosqualityQ3
dc.indekslendigikaynakWeb of Science
dc.indekslendigikaynakScopus
dc.indekslendigikaynakPubMed
dc.institutionauthorGençer, R. Çağrı
dc.institutionauthorÖzel, Abdullah
dc.institutionauthorUçkan, İbrahim Sina
dc.language.isoen
dc.publisherNLM (Medline)
dc.relation.ispartofEuropean Review for Medical and Pharmacological Sciencesen_US
dc.relation.publicationcategoryMakale - Uluslararası Hakemli Dergi - Kurum Öğretim Elemanı
dc.rightsinfo:eu-repo/semantics/closedAccess
dc.subjectMagnetic Mallet Device
dc.subjectConventional Osteotome-Hammer
dc.subjectRamus Osteotomy
dc.titleBilateral sagittal split ramus osteotomy using a conventional osteotome-hammer and a magnetic mallet device: An in vitro comparison
dc.typeArticle

Dosyalar

Lisans paketi
Listeleniyor 1 - 1 / 1
Küçük Resim Yok
İsim:
license.txt
Boyut:
1.44 KB
Biçim:
Item-specific license agreed upon to submission
Açıklama:
İndir

Koleksiyon

Diş Hekimliği Fakültesi Makale Koleksiyonu
PubMed İndeksli Yayınlar Koleksiyonu
Scopus İndeksli Yayınlar Koleksiyonu
WoS İndeksli Yayınlar Koleksiyonu