nach oben

Erschienen in:

20.01.2024 | Original Article

Determining the safety margin of mandibular lingula in sagittal split ramus osteotomy

verfasst von: Gorkem Tekin, Nesrin Saruhan Kose, Mehmet Ugurlu, Omur Dereci, Yasin Caglar Kosar, Gunay Gojayeva, Gizem Caliskan

Erschienen in: Surgical and Radiologic Anatomy | Ausgabe 2/2024

Einloggen, um Zugang zu erhalten

Abstract

Purpose

The anatomical position of the lingula is clinically very important to prevent injuries during sagittal split ramus osteotomy. Our study aims to evaluate the localisation of the lingula by cone beam computed tomography (CBCT) and to compare the localisation of the lingula between malocclusion, gender, and lingula types.

Methods

A retrospective study was conducted to evaluate the shape and location of the lingula using CBCT. A total of 250 CBCT images were included in this study. The lingula was classified as nodular, assimilated, truncated, or triangular type. Six defined distances from the top of the lingula were measured: anterior border of the ramus (L-A), posterior border of the ramus (L-P), internal oblique ridge (L-IOR), mandibular notch (L-N), and distal surface of the mandibular second molar (L-M2) and occlusal plane (L-OP). The measured distances were compared between gender, malocclusion, and lingula types.

Results

The most common type of lingula was nodular (32.4%). The L-N, L-P, L-M2, and L-OP distances between genders were statistically higher in male patients than in female patients. The L-IOR, L-M2, and L-OP distances exhibited statistically significant differences found between malocclusions. No statistically significant difference was found when the distances of the lingula to the anatomical points were compared between the lingula types.

Conclusion

These variations in positioning of the lingula depending on the dysmorphoses are developing towards a systematic 3D examination before any mandibular osteotomy to precisely visualize the position and shape of the lingula.

Acebal-Bianco F, Vuylsteke PL, Mommaerts MY, De Clercq CA (2007) Perioperative complications in corrective facial orthopedic surgery: a 5-year retrospective study. J Oral Maxillofac Surg 58:754–760. https://doi.org/10.1053/joms.2000.7874CrossRef

Akcay H, Kalabalık F, Tatar B, Ulu M (2019) Location of the mandibular lingula: comparison of skeletal Class I and Class III patients in relation to ramus osteotomy using cone-beam computed tomography. J Stomatol Oral Maxillofac Surg 120:504–508. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jormas.2019.07.013CrossRefPubMed

Angelopoulos C, Thomas SL, Hechler S, Parissis N, Hlavacek M (2008) Comparison between digital panoramic radiography and cone-beam computed tomography for the identification of the mandibular canal as part of presurgical dental implant assessment. J Oral Maxillofac Surg 66:2130–2135. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.joms.2008.06.021CrossRefPubMed

De Vos W, Casselman J, Swennen GR (2009) Cone-beam computerized tomography (CBCT) imaging of the oral and maxillofacial region: a systematic review of the literature. Int J Oral Maxillofac Surg 38:609–625. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijom.2009.02.028CrossRefPubMed

Falter B, Schepers S, Vrielinck L, Lambrichts I, Thijs H, Politis C (2010) Occurrence of bad splits during sagittal split osteotomy. Oral Surg Oral Med Oral Pathol Oral Radiol Endod 110:430–435. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tripleo.2010.02.003CrossRefPubMed

Fernandes AC, Cardoso PM, Fernandes IS, Moraes M (2013) Anatomic study for the horizontal cut of the sagittal split ramus osteotomy. J Oral Maxillofac Surg 71:1239–1244. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.joms.2013.01.013CrossRefPubMed

Freire-Maia B, Machado VD, Valerio CS, Custódio AL, Manzi FR, Junqueira JL (2017) Evaluation of the accuracy of linear measurements on multi-slice and cone beam computed tomography scans to detect the mandibular canal during bilateral sagittal split osteotomy of the mandible. Int J Oral Maxillofac Surg 46:296–302. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijom.2016.11.007CrossRefPubMed

Hsu KJ, Tseng YC, Liang SW, Hsiao SY, Chen CM (2020) Dimension and location of the mandibular lingula: comparisons of gender and skeletal patterns using cone-beam computed tomography. Biomed Res Int 2020:2571534. https://doi.org/10.1155/2020/2571534CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral

Jang HY, Han SJ (2019) Measurement of mandibular lingula location using cone-beam computed tomography and internal oblique ridge-guided inferior alveolar nerve block. J Korean Assoc Oral Maxillofac Surg 45:158–166. https://doi.org/10.5125/jkaoms.2019.45.3.158CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral

10.

Jansisyanont P, Apinhasmit W, Chompoopong S (2009) Shape, height, and location of the lingula for sagittal ramus osteotomy in Thais. Clin Anat 22:787–793. https://doi.org/10.1002/ca.20849CrossRefPubMed

11.

Kositbowornchai S, Siritapetawee M, Damrongrungruang T, Khongkankong W, Chatrchaiwiwatana S, Khamanarong K, Chanthaooplee T (2007) Shape of the lingula and its localization by panoramic radiograph versus dry mandibular measurement. Surg Radiol Anat 29:689–694. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00276-007-0270-9CrossRefPubMed

12.

Lima FJ, Oliveira Neto OB, Barbosa FT, Sousa-Rodrigues CF (2016) Location, shape and anatomic relations of the mandibular foramen and the mandibular lingula: a contribution to surgical procedures in the ramus of the mandible. Oral Maxillofac Surg 20:177–182. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10006-016-0547-4CrossRefPubMed

13.

Mommaerts MY (1992) Two similar “bad splits” and how they were treated. Report of two cases. Int J Oral Maxillofac Surg 21:331–332. https://doi.org/10.1016/s0901-5027(05)80754-4CrossRefPubMed

14.

Muto T, Takahashi M, Akizuki K (2012) Evaluation of the mandibular ramus fracture line after sagittal split ramus osteotomy using 3-dimensional computed tomography. J Oral Maxillofac Surg 70:648–652. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.joms.2012.07.048CrossRef

15.

Park JH, Jung HD, Kim HJ, Jung YS (2018) Anatomical study of the location of the antilingula, lingula, and mandibular foramen for vertical ramus osteotomy. Maxillofac Plast Reconstr Surg 40:15. https://doi.org/10.1186/s40902-018-0155-3CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral

16.

Park KR, Kim SY, Kim GJ, Park HS, Jung YS (2014) Anatomic study to determine a safe surgical reference point for mandibular ramus osteotomy. J Craniomaxillofac Surg 42:22–27. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jcms.2013.01.041CrossRefPubMed

17.

Plooij JM, Naphausen MT, Maal TJ, Xi T, Rangel FA, Swennnen G, Koning M, Borstlap WA, Bergé SJ (2009) 3D evaluation of the lingual fracture line after a bilateral sagittal split osteotomy of the mandible. Int J Oral Maxillofac Surg 38:1244–1249. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijom.2009.07.013CrossRefPubMed

18.

Pogrel MA, Schmidt BL, Ammar A (1995) The presence of the antilingula and its relationship to the true lingula. Br J Oral Maxillofac Surg 33:235–238. https://doi.org/10.1016/0266-4356(95)90007-1CrossRefPubMed

19.

Reyneke JP, Ferretti C (2016) The bilateral sagittal split mandibular ramus osteotomy. Atlas Oral Maxillofac Surg Clin North Am 24:27–36. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cxom.2015.10.005CrossRefPubMed

20.

Sekerci AE, Cantekin K, Aydinbelge M (2013) Cone beam computed tomographic analysis of the shape, height, and location of the mandibular lingula in a population of children. Biomed Res Int 2013:825453. https://doi.org/10.1155/2013/825453CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral

21.

Sekerci AE, Sisman Y (2014) Cone-beam computed tomography analysis of the shape, height, and location of the mandibular lingula. Surg Radiol Anat 36:155–162. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00276-013-1150-0CrossRefPubMed

22.

Sinanoglu A, Seki U, Tokuc B (2022) A detailed radiomorphometric analysis of the mandibular foramen, lingula and anti-lingula with a special emphasis on mandibular prognathism. J Stomatol Oral Maxillofac Surg 124:101260. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jormas.2022.08.003CrossRefPubMed

23.

Sindel M, Salim H, Sarıkaya DM, Ozturk S, Goztepe MB, Bilgin B, Calguner E, Sindel A (2019) Surgical morphological evaluation of the anatomical position of lingula mandibulae. Anatomy 13:105–106

24.

Smith BR, Rajchel JL, Waite DE, Read L (1991) Mandibular ramus anatomy as it relates to the medial osteotomy of the sagittal split ramus osteotomy. J Oral Maxillofac Surg 49:112–116. https://doi.org/10.1016/0278-2391(91)90095-4CrossRefPubMed

25.

Steenen SA, Becking AG (2016) Bad splits in bilateral sagittal split osteotomy: systematic review of fracture patterns. Int J Oral Maxillofac Surg 45:887–897. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijom.2016.02.001CrossRefPubMed

26.

Tengku Shaeran TA, Shaari R, Abdul Rahman S, Alam MK, Muhamad Husin A (2017) Morphometric analysis of prognathic and non-prognathic mandibles in relation to BSSO sites using CBCT. J Oral Biol Craniofac Res 7:7–12. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jobcr.2016.10.007CrossRefPubMed

27.

Trost O, Salignon V, Cheynel N, Malka G, Trouilloud P (2010) A simple method to locate mandibular foramen: preliminary radiological study. Surg Radiol Anat 32:927–931. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00276-010-0645-1CrossRefPubMed

28.

Tuli A, Choudhry R, Choudhry S, Raheja S, Agarwal S (2000) Variation in shape of the lingula in the adult human mandible. J Anat 197:313–317. https://doi.org/10.1046/j.1469-7580.2000.19720313.xCrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral

29.

Werther J, Hall H (2000) Vertical ramus osteotomy and the inverted-L osteotomy. Oral and Maxillofac Surg 2:311–323

Titel: Determining the safety margin of mandibular lingula in sagittal split ramus osteotomy
verfasst von: Gorkem Tekin
Nesrin Saruhan Kose
Mehmet Ugurlu
Omur Dereci
Yasin Caglar Kosar
Gunay Gojayeva
Gizem Caliskan
Publikationsdatum: 20.01.2024
Verlag: Springer Paris
Erschienen in: Surgical and Radiologic Anatomy / Ausgabe 2/2024
Print ISSN: 0930-1038
Elektronische ISSN: 1279-8517
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00276-023-03291-9

Update Radiologie

Bestellen Sie unseren Fach-Newsletter und bleiben Sie gut informiert.

Newsletter bestellen

Live-Webinar "Urologie und Sexualmedizin in der Praxis"

Springer Medizin

Determining the safety margin of mandibular lingula in sagittal split ramus osteotomy