Hypoesthesia associated with mandibular movement after sagittal split ramus osteotomy

被引：4
作者：
Yamamoto T. [1 ]
Fujii-Abe K. [1 ]
Fukayama H. [1 ]
Kawahara H. [2 ]
机构：
[1] Section of Anesthesiology and Clinical Physiology, Department of Oral Restitution, Division of Oral Health Sciences, Graduate School, Tokyo Medical and Dental University, 1-5-4, Yushima, Bunkyo-ku, Tokyo
[2] Department of Dental Anesthesiology, Tsurumi University School of Dental Medicine, 2-1-3 Tsurumi-ku, Yokohama-shi, 230-0062, Kanagawa
来源：
Oral and Maxillofacial Surgery | 2017年 / 21卷 / 3期
基金：
日本学术振兴会;
关键词：
Hypoesthesia; Neurosensory disturbance; Orthognathic surgery; Sagittal split osteotomy;
D O I：
10.1007/s10006-017-0633-2
中图分类号：
学科分类号：
摘要：
Purpose: This retrospective study investigated the relationship between the degree of neurosensory disturbance (NSD) and mandibular movement distance after sagittal split ramus osteotomy (SSRO) and assessed sensory recovery. Methods: Lower lip hypoesthesia was evaluated at 1 week, 1 month, and 2 months after SSRO in 38 patients categorized according to the distance of mandibular movement: S group (0–7 mm; n = 17, 4 males and 13 females) and L group (7–14 mm; n = 21, 7 males, 14 females). Symptoms were evaluated by visual analog scale (VAS), tactile-threshold (SW) test, static 2-point discrimination (s-2PD) test, and current perception threshold (CPT) test. Results: The two groups did not differ significantly in gender and age. The Aβ fiber results of the CPT test differed significantly between the groups at 1 week and 1 month postsurgery (P < 0.05). There were no significant differences between the groups throughout the period in terms of VAS, SW, s-2PD, Aδ fiber, and C fiber of CPT. Conclusions: Post-SSRO, the incidence of NSD in terms of tactile sensation may be greater in the L group early postoperatively. This may assist surgeons in explaining postoperative hypoesthesia to patients preoperatively. © 2017, Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg.
引用
收藏
页码：313 / 319
页数：6
相关论文
共 47 条
  • [21] Akal U.K., Sayan N.B., Aydogan S., Yaman Z., Evaluation of the neurosensory deficiencies of oral and maxillofacial region following surgery, Int J Oral Maxillofac Surg, 29, 5, pp. 331-336, (2000)
  • [22] Eliav E., Gracely R.H., Nahlieli O., Benoliel R., Quantitative sensory testing in trigeminal nerve damage assessment, J Orofac Pain, 18, 4, pp. 339-344, (2004)
  • [23] Jaaskelainen S.K., The utility of clinical neurophysiological and quantitative sensory testing for trigeminal neuropathy, J Orofac Pain, 18, 4, pp. 355-359, (2004)
  • [24] Kesarwani A., Antonyshyn O., Mackinnon S.E., Gruss J.S., Novak C., Kelly L., Facial sensibility testing in the normal and posttraumatic population, Ann Plast Surg, 22, pp. 416-425, (1989)
  • [25] Dellon A.L., Andonian E., DeJesus R.A., Measuring sensibility of the trigeminal nerve, Plast Reconstr Surg, 120, 6, pp. 1546-1550, (2007)
  • [26] Kim H.S., Kho H.S., Kim Y.K., Lee S.W., Chung S.C., Reliability and characterisitics of current perception thresholds in the territory of the infraorbital and inferior alveolar nerves, J Orofac Pain, 14, 4, pp. 286-292, (2000)
  • [27] Ziccardi V.B., Hullett J.S., Gomes J., Physical neurosensory testing versus current perception threshold assessment in trigeminal nerve injuries related to dental treatment: a retrospective study, Quintessence Int, 40, 7, pp. 603-609, (2009)
  • [28] Calabria F., Sellek L., Gugole F., Trevisiol L., Bertolasi L., D'Agostino A., The use of sensory action potential to evaluate inferior alveolar nerve damage after orthognathic surgery, J Craniofac Surg, 24, 2, pp. 514-517, (2013)
  • [29] Mensink G., Zweers A., Wolterbeek R., Dicker G.G., Groot R.H., van Merkesteyn R.J., Neurosensory disturbances one year after bilateral sagittal split osteotomy of the mandibular performed with separators: a multi-centre prospective study, J Craniomaxillofac Surg, 40, pp. 763-767, (2012)
  • [30] Borstlap W.A., Stoelinga P.J., Hoppenreijs T.J., van't Hof M.A., Stabilisation of sagittal split advancement osteotomies with miniplates: a prospective, multicentre study with two-year follow-up. Part I. Clinical parameters, Int J Oral Maxillofac Surg, 33, pp. 433-441, (2004)
12345