2017
DOI: 10.1016/j.oooo.2016.08.019
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

Stability of large maxillary advancements using a combination of prebent and conventional plates for fixation

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
2
1

Citation Types

0
8
1

Year Published

2020
2020
2023
2023

Publication Types

Select...
9

Relationship

1
8

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 11 publications
(9 citation statements)
references
References 21 publications
0
8
1
Order By: Relevance
“…Bailey et al have reported an 80% chance of less than 2 mm relapse with <8 mm maxillary advancements, 32 and while the magnitude of advancement in our case was 9 mm, we believe it was within the acceptable range, especially with rigid fixation. 33 A drawback of our outcome was the excessive retroclination of the mandibular incisors at the end of treatment, partially due to the extraction of the mandibular premolars, and partially due to the autorotation of the mandible which exacerbated the cephalometric values. Additionally, we were unable to achieve coincident midlines, although the maxillary midline was centered with the face and canine relationships were acceptable, and thus it was deemed to be an acceptable compromise.…”
Section: Discussionmentioning
confidence: 90%
“…Bailey et al have reported an 80% chance of less than 2 mm relapse with <8 mm maxillary advancements, 32 and while the magnitude of advancement in our case was 9 mm, we believe it was within the acceptable range, especially with rigid fixation. 33 A drawback of our outcome was the excessive retroclination of the mandibular incisors at the end of treatment, partially due to the extraction of the mandibular premolars, and partially due to the autorotation of the mandible which exacerbated the cephalometric values. Additionally, we were unable to achieve coincident midlines, although the maxillary midline was centered with the face and canine relationships were acceptable, and thus it was deemed to be an acceptable compromise.…”
Section: Discussionmentioning
confidence: 90%
“…The larger contact surface and cross-sectional areas, plus the number of fixation screws, may also explain the higher resistance to vertical and horizontal loading 7. In 2016, Ragaey et al showed that prebent plates in combination with L plates are a more stable method of fixation for maxillary advancements in skeletal Class III patients 8…”
Section: Discussionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…7 In 2016, Ragaey et al showed that prebent plates in combination with L plates are a more stable method of fixation for maxillary advancements in skeletal Class III patients. 8 A disadvantage of these plates is that they are larger and more rigid which without any modifications might make them more palpable. 5 With this simple modification, these plates can be easily placed.…”
Section: Surgical Techniquementioning
confidence: 99%
“…OS results in improved esthetic appearance, neat dentition, and better masticatory function 1–3. Le Fort I osteotomy is the main orthognathic surgical method used to move the maxillary segment in 3 dimensions (D) to obtain a harmonious positional relationship of the maxilla relative to the overall craniofacial bone 4,5. Although Le Fort I osteotomy improves the patient’s facial contour, it may affect the normal anatomy near the surgical field.…”
mentioning
confidence: 99%