Investigation of the influence of mallet and chisel techniques on the lingual fracture line and comparison with the use of splitter and separators during sagittal split osteotomy in cadaveric pig mandibles

Verweij, J.P.; Mensink, G.; Houppermans, P.N.W.J.; Frank, M.D.; Merkesteyn, J.P.R. van

doi:doi:10.1016/j.jcms.2015.01.001

In bilateral sagittal split osteotomy the proximal and distal segments of the mandible are traditionally separated using chisels. Modern modifications include prying and spreading the segments with splitters. This study investigates the lingual fracture patterns and status of the nerve after sagittal split osteotomy (SSO) using the traditional chisel technique and compares these results with earlier studies using the splitter technique.Lingual fractures after SSO in cadaveric pig mandibles were analysed using a lingual split scale and split scoring system. Iatrogenic damage to the inferior alveolar nerve was assessed.Fractures started through the caudal cortex more frequently in the chisel group. This group showed more posterior lingual fractures, although this difference was not statistically significant. Nerve damage was present in three cases in the chisel group, but was not observed in the splitter group.A trend was apparent, that SSO using the chisel technique instead of the...Show moreIn bilateral sagittal split osteotomy the proximal and distal segments of the mandible are traditionally separated using chisels. Modern modifications include prying and spreading the segments with splitters. This study investigates the lingual fracture patterns and status of the nerve after sagittal split osteotomy (SSO) using the traditional chisel technique and compares these results with earlier studies using the splitter technique.Lingual fractures after SSO in cadaveric pig mandibles were analysed using a lingual split scale and split scoring system. Iatrogenic damage to the inferior alveolar nerve was assessed.Fractures started through the caudal cortex more frequently in the chisel group. This group showed more posterior lingual fractures, although this difference was not statistically significant. Nerve damage was present in three cases in the chisel group, but was not observed in the splitter group.A trend was apparent, that SSO using the chisel technique instead of the splitter technique resulted in more posterior lingual fracture lines, although this difference was not statistically significant. Both techniques resulted in reliable lingual fracture patterns. Splitting without chisels could prevent nerve damage, therefore we propose a spreading and prying technique with splitter and separators. However, caution should be exercised when extrapolating these results to the clinic. (C) 2015 European Association for Cranio-Maxillo-Facial Surgery. Published by Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.Show less

Leiden University Scholarly Publications

View statistics

In Collections

Investigation of the influence of mallet and chisel techniques on the lingual fracture line and comparison with the use of splitter and separators during sagittal split osteotomy in cadaveric pig mandibles