A PHP Error was encountered

Severity: Warning

Message: file_get_contents(https://...@pubfacts.com&api_key=b8daa3ad693db53b1410957c26c9a51b4908&a=1): Failed to open stream: HTTP request failed! HTTP/1.1 429 Too Many Requests

Filename: helpers/my_audit_helper.php

Line Number: 176

Backtrace:

File: /var/www/html/application/helpers/my_audit_helper.php
Line: 176
Function: file_get_contents

File: /var/www/html/application/helpers/my_audit_helper.php
Line: 250
Function: simplexml_load_file_from_url

File: /var/www/html/application/helpers/my_audit_helper.php
Line: 1034
Function: getPubMedXML

File: /var/www/html/application/helpers/my_audit_helper.php
Line: 3152
Function: GetPubMedArticleOutput_2016

File: /var/www/html/application/controllers/Detail.php
Line: 575
Function: pubMedSearch_Global

File: /var/www/html/application/controllers/Detail.php
Line: 489
Function: pubMedGetRelatedKeyword

File: /var/www/html/index.php
Line: 316
Function: require_once

Bilateral sagittal split ramus osteotomy using a conventional osteotome-hammer and a magnetic mallet device: an in vitro comparison. | LitMetric

Bilateral sagittal split ramus osteotomy using a conventional osteotome-hammer and a magnetic mallet device: an in vitro comparison.

Eur Rev Med Pharmacol Sci

Department of Oral and Maxillofacial Surgery, Faculty of Dentistry, Istanbul Medipol University, Istanbul, Turkey.

Published: July 2023

Objective: The conventional chisel osteotome technique (CCOT) and the magnetic mallet osteotome technique (MMOT) with a newly manufactured custom osteotome tip for the magnetic mallet device (MMD) were compared to determine whether magneto-dynamic osteotomies are as reliable for orthognathic surgery as the conventional method.

Materials And Methods: A custom osteotome tip compatible with a magnetic mallet device was manufactured. Thirty-two fresh 1-year-old sheep hemi-mandibles were chosen for osteotomy procedures to achieve the most human-like results. Sagittal split ramus osteotomies were performed, and lingual fracture pattern (LFP), basis split pattern (BSS), duration of sagittal split osteotomy, and alveolar inferior nerve injury were investigated macroscopically.

Results: Six of the defined fracture schemes were observed out of the 27 lingual split patterns. After LFP and BSS evaluation, the unfavorable fracture counts for MMOT and CCOT are 3 and 4, respectively. The macroscopic nerve damage assessment for both groups is 2 for MMOT and 1 for CCOT. Although the average durations are similar in both groups, the difference between MMOT samples is closer. None above showed a significant difference.

Conclusions: MMOT was evaluated as a reliable alternative to CCOT in bilateral sagittal split ramus osteotomy based on the lingual and basis split patterns, duration, and nerve damage findings.

Download full-text PDF

Source
http://dx.doi.org/10.26355/eurrev_202307_32745DOI Listing

Publication Analysis

Top Keywords

sagittal split
16
magnetic mallet
16
split ramus
12
mallet device
12
bilateral sagittal
8
ramus osteotomy
8
osteotome technique
8
custom osteotome
8
basis split
8
split patterns
8

Similar Publications

Want AI Summaries of new PubMed Abstracts delivered to your In-box?

Enter search terms and have AI summaries delivered each week - change queries or unsubscribe any time!