medigraphic.com
ISSN 2007-3178 (Print)
Asociación Mexicana de Cirugía Bucal y Maxilofacial, Colegio Mexicano de Cirugía Bucal y Maxilofacial, A.C.

2018, Number 2

Next >>

Rev Mex Cir Bucal Maxilofac 2018; 14 (2)

Modified curved sagittal mentoplasty, description of the technique and evaluation of the sensorineural response. Series of cases

Mastranzo CH, Carrillo RJ

Language: Spanish
References: 12
Page: 71-76
PDF size: 348.40 Kb.


ABSTRACT

Described in 2006 by Wang et al sagittal curve mentoplasty is defined as a osteotomy performed in the shortest thickness parasymphysis that reduce the risk of postoperative sensorineural lesions in soft tissue chin. Material and methods: A prospective longitudinal and cross-sectional study was conducted to evaluate the neurosensory response, contact detection, thermal testing and motor response from the first to the sixth month postoperatively of seven patients undergoing sagittal curve mentoplasty between January and March 2014 in Hospital «Centennial of the Mexican Revolution» and Hospital «Dr. Dario Fernandez Fierro», ISSSTE. Results: All patients were satisfied with the cosmetic result. Of the seven patients operated, three mentioned that the tests were transient tenderness bilateral sensorineural deficiency, two on the right and one on the left, which improved from the third month of postoperative. A temperature tests mentioned five decreased to thermal stimulation and two mentioned normal response to the second month. A motor response none of the seven patients reported abnormal changes. Conclusions: Sensorineural complications decreases significantly with the sagittal curve mentoplasty due to his design, on the basis of the anatomy using as a benchmark the smaller thickness of the mandibular ridge. The approach is lesser, without handling the mental nerve and do not requires the detachment of the mylohyoid muscle.


REFERENCES

  1. Wang J, Gui L, Xu Q, Cai J. The sagittal curving osteotomy: a modified technique for advanced genioplasty. J Plast Reconstr Aesthet Surg. 2007; 60 (2): 119-124.

  2. Hinds EC, Kent JN. Genioplasty: the versatility of horizontal osteotomy. J Oral Surg. 1969; 27 (9): 690-700.

  3. Wolford LM, Bates JD. Surgical Modification for the correction of chin deformities. Oral Surg Oral Med Oral Pathol. 1988; 66 (3): 279-286.

  4. Thomson ER. Sagittal genioplasty: a new technique of genioplasty. Br J Plast Surg. 1985; 38 (1): 70-74.

  5. Nishioka GJ, Mason M, Van Sickels JE. Neurosensory disturbance associated with the anterior mandibular horizontal osteotomy. J Oral Maxillofac Surg. 1988; 46 (2): 107-110.

  6. Laurent G, Walid L, Olivier R, Francois C, Raymond G. Alteration of chin sensibility due to damage of the cutaneous branch of the mylohyoid nerve during genioplasty. J Oral Maxillofac Surg. 2002; 60 (11): 1371-1373.

  7. Westermark A, Bystedt H, von Konow L. Inferior alveolar nerve function after mandibular osteotomies. Br J Oral Maxillofac Surg. 1998; 36 (6): 425-428.

  8. Goracy ES. Fracture of the mandibular body and ramus during horizontal osteotomy for augmentation genioplasty. J Oral Surg. 1978; 36 (11): 893-894.

  9. Ellis E III, Ellis E, Dechow PC, McNamara JA Jr., Carlson DS, Liskiewicz WE. Advancement genioplasty with and without soft tissue pedicle: an experimental investigation. J Oral Maxillofac Surg. 1984; 42 (10): 637-645.

  10. Zuniga JR, Essick GK. A contemporary approach to the clinical evaluation of trigeminal nerve injuries. Oral Maxillofac Surg Clin North Am. 1992; 4 (2): 353-357.

  11. Ghali GE, Epker BN. Clinical neurosensory testing: practical applications. J Oral Maxillofac Surg. 1989; 47 (10): 1074-1078.

  12. Preethi Bhat, Cariappa KM. Inferior alveolar nerve deficits and recovery following surgical removal of impacted mandibular third molars. J Maxillofac Oral Surg. 2012; 11 (3): 304-308.




2020     |     www.medigraphic.com