Download PDF
CC BY-NC-ND 4.0 · European Journal of General Dentistry 2014; 3(02): 140-145
DOI: 10.4103/2278-9626.134842
Original Article

Assessment of mandibular ramus thickness in Afro-Brazilian subjects using computed tomography

Paula Bonfim Almeida Costa
Department of Orthodontics, School of Dentistry, Federal University of Bahia, Salvador, Bahia, Brazil
,
Marcos Alan Vieira Bittencourt
Department of Orthodontics, School of Dentistry, Federal University of Bahia, Salvador, Bahia, Brazil
,
Iêda Margarida Crusoé Rocha Rebello
1   Department of Radiology, School of Dentistry, Federal University of Bahia, Salvador, Bahia, Brazil
› Author Affiliations
› Further Information
Also available at
  PDF Download Permissions and Reprints

Abstract

Purpose: The purpose of this study was to investigate whether the skeletal pattern in the anteroposterior and vertical directions influences mandibular ramus thickness in Afro-Brazilian subjects, using computed tomography (CT). Materials and Methods: CT images of 45 individuals of Afro-Brazilian, from both genders, aged ranges between 19 and 46 years, were used. Determination of the skeletal pattern in the anteroposterior direction was based on the association of the ANB and WITS values, and in the vertical direction, through the GoGn-SN angle. Measurement of the mandibular ramus was performed just above the lingula in the coronal plane after three-dimensional reconstruction of the image and multiplanar analysis. Results: Twenty-seven of the 45 images were from individuals with Class I skeletal pattern, 13 Class II and 5 Class III, with means of 7.19 mm, 7.15 mm and 7.3 mm, respectively (P = 0.95). In the vertical direction, 4 individuals exhibited reduced vertical skeletal pattern, 28 normal pattern and 13 increased pattern, with means of 7.01 mm, 7.15 mm and 7.33 mm, respectively (P = 0.77). Conclusion: No statistically significant difference was found in mandibular ramus thickness in the different skeletal patterns, both in the anteroposterior and vertical directions.

Keywords

African Continental Ancestry Group - mandible - osteotomy - sagittal split ramus - tomography - X-ray


Publication History

Article published online:
01 November 2021

© 2014. European Journal of General Dentistry. This is an open access article published by Thieme under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution-NonDerivative-NonCommercial-License, permitting copying and reproduction so long as the original work is given appropriate credit. Contents may not be used for commercial purposes, or adapted, remixed, transformed or built upon. (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/.)

Thieme Medical and Scientific Publishers Pvt. Ltd.
A-12, 2nd Floor, Sector 2, Noida-201301 UP, India

 

  • References

  • 1 Trauner R, Obwegeser H. The surgical correction of mandibular prognathism and retrognathia with consideration of genioplasty. I. Surgical procedures to correct mandibular prognathism and reshaping of the chin. Oral Surg Oral Med Oral Pathol 1957;10:677-89.
  • 2 Dal Pont G. Retromolar osteotomy for the correction of prognathism. J Oral Surg Anesth Hosp Dent Serv 1961;19:42-7.
  • 3 Hunsuck EE. A modified intraoral sagittal splitting technic for correction of mandibular prognathism. J Oral Surg 1968;26:250-3.
  • 4 Epker BN. Modifications in the sagittal osteotomy of the mandible. J Oral Surg 1977;35:157-9.
  • 5 Wolford LM, Bennett MA, Rafferty CG. Modification of the mandibular ramus sagittal split osteotomy. Oral Surg Oral Med Oral Pathol 1987;64:146-55.
  • 6 Almeida JC Jr, Cavalcante JR. Osteotomia sagital do ramo mandibular e osteotomia total de maxila: Uma revisão da literatura. Pesqui Bras Odontopediatria Clin Integr 2004;4:249-58.
  • 7 Smith BR, Rajchel JL, Waite DE, Read L. Mandibular ramus anatomy as it relates to the medial osteotomy of the sagittal split ramus osteotomy. J Oral Maxillofac Surg 1991;49:112-6.
  • 8 Yamauchi K, Takahashi T, Kaneuji T, Nogami S, Yamamoto N, Miyamoto I, et al. Risk factors for neurosensory disturbance after bilateral sagittal split osteotomy based on position of mandibular canal and morphology of mandibular angle. J Oral Maxillofac Surg 2012;70:401-6.
  • 9 Noleto JW, Marchiori E, Da Silveira HM. Evaluation of mandibular ramus morphology using computed tomography in patients with mandibular prognathism and retrognathia: Relevance to the sagittal split ramus osteotomy. J Oral Maxillofac Surg 2010;68:1788-94.
  • 10 Ma J, Lu L. Computed tomography morphology of the mandibular ramus at the lingual plane in patients with mandibular hyperplasia. Int J Oral Maxillofac Surg 2009;38:823-6.
  • 11 Wyatt WM. Sagittal ramus split osteotomy: Literature review and suggested modification of technique. Br J Oral Maxillofac Surg 1997;35:137-41.
  • 12 Kim HJ, Lee HY, Chung IH, Cha IH, Yi CK. Mandibular anatomy related to sagittal split ramus osteotomy in Koreans. Yonsei Med J 1997;38:19-25.
  • 13 Nishioka GJ, Aragon SB. Modified sagittal split technique for patients with a high lingula. J Oral Maxillofac Surg 1989;47:426-7.
  • 14 Ylikontiola L, Moberg K, Huumonen S, Soikkonen K, Oikarinen K. Comparison of three radiographic methods used to locate the mandibular canal in the buccolingual direction before bilateral sagittal split osteotomy. Oral Surg Oral Med Oral Pathol Oral Radiol Endod 2002;93:736-42.
  • 15 Muto T, Shigeo K, Yamamoto K, Kawakami J. Computed tomography morphology of the mandibular ramus in prognathism: Effect on the medial osteotomy of the sagittal split ramus osteotomy. J Oral Maxillofac Surg 2003;61:89-93.
  • 16 Ribeiro DP, Gandelmann IH, Medeiros PJ. Comparison of mandibular rami width in patients with prognathism and retrognathia. J Oral Maxillofac Surg 2006;64:1506-9.
  • 17 Hallikainen D, Iizuka T, Lindqvist C. Cross-sectional tomography in evaluation of patients undergoing sagittal split osteotomy. J Oral Maxillofac Surg 1992;50:1269-73.
  • 18 Jacobson A. The "Wits" appraisal of jaw disharmony. Am J Orthod 1975;67:125-38.
  • 19 Jacobson A. Update on the Wits appraisal. Angle Orthod 1988;58:205-19.
  • 20 Steiner CC. Cephalometric for you and me. Am J Orthod 1953;39:729.
  • 21 Boeck EM, Kuramae M, Lunardi N, Santos-Pinto Ad, Mazzonetto R. Cephalometric evaluation of surgical mandibular advancement. Braz Oral Res 2010;24:189-96.
  • 22 Venugoplan SR, Nanda V, Turkistani K, Desai S, Allareddy V. Discharge patterns of orthognathic surgeries in the United States. J Oral Maxillofac Surg 2012;70:e77-86.
  • 23 Tom WK, Martone CH, Mintz SM. A study of mandibular ramus anatomy and its significance to sagittal split osteotomy. Int J Oral Maxillofac Surg 1997;26:176-8.
  • 24 Tsunori M, Mashita M, Kasai K. Relationship between facial types and tooth and bone characteristics of the mandible obtained by CT scanning. Angle Orthod 1998;68:557-62.
  • 25 Yu IH, Wong YK. Evaluation of mandibular anatomy related to sagittal split ramus osteotomy using 3-dimensional computed tomography scan images. Int J Oral Maxillofac Surg 2008;37:521-8.
  • 26 Alder ME, Deahl ST, Matteson SR. Clinical usefulness of two-dimensional reformatted and three-dimensionally rendered computerized tomographic images: Literature review and a survey of surgeons′ opinions. J Oral Maxillofac Surg 1995;53:375-86.