PubMed دسترسی آزاد

In vitro comparison of fixation techniques for stabilization of Le Fort I osteotomy in short and large advancements of the maxilla.

استودیوی صوتی مقاله

پخش حرفه‌ای فارسی و انگلیسی

در حال بررسی نسخه‌های صوتی ذخیره‌شده…

صوت تولیدشده با هوش مصنوعی است. برای کاربرد علمی یا درمانی، متن و منبع اصلی را بررسی کنید.
خواندن هوشمند فارسی و انگلیسی در حال آماده‌سازی صداهای مرورگر…
تنظیم صدای طبیعی و سرعت

صداهایی که در نامشان «Natural»، «Neural» یا «Online» دیده می‌شود معمولاً طبیعی‌ترند. انتخاب صدا به صداهای نصب‌شده در ویندوز و مرورگر شما بستگی دارد.

چکیده اصلی

PURPOSE: Le Fort I osteotomy is widely performed in orthognathic surgery for maxillary repositioning and for the treatment of dentofacial deformities and obstructive sleep apnea (OSA). Postoperative relapse remains a concern, particularly after large maxillary advancements, highlighting the importance of rigid fixation. This study aimed to determine which fixation technique provides the greatest rigidity. METHODS: In this in vitro study, the biomechanical rigidity of five commonly used fixation techniques for Le Fort I osteotomies was evaluated using 150 polyurethane specimens with advancements of 5 mm and 10 mm. The techniques included two L-plates (A), four L-plates of different thicknesses (B and C), two precontoured Le Fort I plates (D), and a hybrid configuration with two precontoured Le Fort I plates combined with two L-plates (E). Resistance to vertical displacement was measured at 1, 3, and 5 mm using a biomechanical testing machine. RESULTS: Fixation E consistently showed the highest resistance across both advancement distances and all displacement intervals, significantly outperforming fixations A, C, and D. Fixation B demonstrated resistance comparable to fixation E, whereas fixation C showed inferior performance despite a similar configuration. Fixations A and D showed the lowest resistance, particularly at 10 mm advancement. CONCLUSION: Overall, fixation E provided the greatest rigidity, while techniques relying on only two plates were biomechanically less effective. Further clinical studies are required to determine the clinical relevance of these findings.

متن کامل اصلی

نسخه دارای مجوز در منبع علمی در دسترس است.

لینک مستقیم از metadata منبع گرفته شده و در تب جدید باز می‌شود.

باز کردن متن کامل

کلیدواژه‌ها

Biomechanical evaluationFixation techniquesLe Fort IMaxillaOsteotomyRigidity
در همین زیرشاخه

مقاله‌های مرتبط

PubMed2026

Influence of Implant Type on Clinical and Radiologic Outcomes: A Cross-Sectional Private Practice-Based Analysis.

OBJECTIVES: To compare tissue-level (TL) and bone-level X (BLX) implants regarding peri-implant bone level alterations, survival, and complication rates over a 3-years. MATERIALS AND METHODS: In this retrospective, non-interventional clinical study, patients that had received either TL or BLX implants (both: Straumann AG), with at least one clinical follow-up (minimum 6 months), were included. Bone-level alterations and bone peaks were…

PubMed2026

Peri-Implant Tissue Stability Following Guided Bone Regeneration With Bioceramic: A Multicenter One-Year Cohort Study.

OBJECTIVES: This multicenter prospective cohort study follows a 1-year period after a previously published randomized controlled trial, comparing the radiographic and clinical outcomes of implants placed with simultaneous guided bone regeneration (GBR) using bioceramic (BC) versus xenograft (BO). MATERIALS AND METHODS: Patients from the previous trial were recalled 1 year after crown delivery. The follow-up data focused on the buccal b…

PubMed2026

Transcrestal Sinus Floor Elevation Using Dental Implant Robot and Osseodensification Drills: A Preliminary Case Series.

OBJECTIVE: This study aims to evaluate the application of an autonomous dental implant robot combined with osseodensification drills for transcrestal maxillary sinus floor elevation (ADIR-OD-TSFE) and simultaneous implant placement. The following parameters, such as maxillary sinus elevation volume (MSV), maxillary sinus elevation area (MSA), membrane elevation height (MEH), implant protrusion length (IPL), implant placement accuracy, …

PubMed2026

Understanding the Workflows in Dynamic and Robotic Computer-Assisted Implant Surgery.

Computer-assisted implant surgery (CAIS) represents a comprehensive digital workflow integrating prosthetically driven planning with various execution modalities. Among these, dynamic (d-CAIS) and robotic (r-CAIS) systems constitute two distinct yet interrelated approaches, sharing core technological principles as well as operative differences. This white paper aims to provide a structured overview of the fundamental concepts and workf…