China 
Africa 
Explore chapters and articles related to this topic
The Anatomical Location of the Mandibular Canal: Its Relationship to the Sagittal Ramus Osteotomy
Published in Niall MH McLeod, Peter A Brennan, 50 Landmark Papers every Oral & Maxillofacial Surgeon Should Know, 2020
Inferior alveolar nerve injury occurs in 31–37% of patients following a sagittal split osteotomy and may be associated with medial retraction of the soft tissues medial to the ramus, the buccal cortical cut, the splitting of the bone, or fixation.6–9 Yoshida et al. and Yamamoto et al. found that neurosensory disturbance was associated with the proximity of the nerve to the lateral cortex.10,11 For this reason, understanding of the position of the nerve when making the surgical cuts and splitting the mandible is important. Modifications in instrumentation and technique have been proposed to reduce the incidence of inferior alveolar nerve injury, but to date there is no robust evidence supporting one technique over another.12
Head and neck
Published in Tor Wo Chiu, Stone’s Plastic Surgery Facts, 2018
Mandible Sublingual bruising suggests a fracture.Malocclusion, abnormal bite and trismus.Lower lip numbness due to inferior alveolar nerve (IAN) injury.
Anatomy and Embryology of the Mouth and Dentition
Published in John C Watkinson, Raymond W Clarke, Terry M Jones, Vinidh Paleri, Nicholas White, Tim Woolford, Head & Neck Surgery Plastic Surgery, 2018
The regional supply to the teeth and gingivae is shown in Table 41.2. The posterior superior alveolar nerves supply the teeth in the upper jaw, while the inferior alveolar nerve supplies those in the lower jaw.
Comparative evaluation of short or standard implants with different prosthetic designs in the posterior mandibular region: a three-dimensional finite element analysis study
Published in Computer Methods in Biomechanics and Biomedical Engineering, 2023
The cone beam computed tomography images used in the study were the posterior left mandibular with missing molars. CBCT images were exported in DICOM format and they were used to construct 3D FEA models of the posterior mandible via a software program (Mimics Innovation Suite, Version 21.0). Bone structures were modeled to have a 2-mm-thick compact bone layer enclosing spongy bone. The inferior alveolar nerve was considered while modeling, and the inferior alveolar nerve was placed 2 mm below the implant (García-Braz et al. 2019). To simulate the atrophic mandible, the geometric modifications were performed using a computer program (SolidWorks, Version 2019). The size of regular mandible models was 24 mm in height, 33 mm in mesiodistal length, and 16 mm in buccolingual width. The size of atrophic mandible models was 20 mm in height, 33 mm in mesiodistal length, and 16 mm in buccolingual width. The regular mandible models were restored with standard implants. While the atrophied mandible models were restored with short implants (Figure 1).
Stop Calling Me Cavernous Hemangioma! A Literature Review on Misdiagnosed Bony Vascular Anomalies
Published in Journal of Investigative Surgery, 2022
Carlotta Liberale, Linda Rozell-Shannon, Laura Moneghini, Riccardo Nocini, Stavros Tombris, Giacomo Colletti
VMs are the most common bony vascular lesions. Usually, a VM of the facial bone is an asymptomatic mass causing various grades of dysmorphism [17]. However, when a VM arises in the maxilla or in the mandible, it may cause tooth displacement. It should be noted though that this behavior is more typical of AVMs. The formation of new venous vessels leads to a reorganization of the surrounding bone. This typically produces a centrifugal radiating mass especially in the maxillary and zygomatic bone, which are low resistance bones [19]. In other cases, when the VM occurs in the medullary compartment of the bone, it may replace the healthy tissue and cause some minor swelling. It can also produce other symptoms, such as inferior alveolar nerve pain, or numbness, which are both caused by compression.
Stress distribution is susceptible to the angle of the osteotomy in the high oblique sagittal osteotomy (HOSO): biomechanical evaluation using finite element analyses
Published in Computer Methods in Biomechanics and Biomedical Engineering, 2021
Herrera-Vizcaíno Carlos, Baselga Lahoz Marta, Pelliccioni Monrroy Orlando, Udeabor E Samuel, Robert Sader, Lukas Benedikt Seifert
Orthognathic surgery involves the surgical reconstruction of the cranial and maxillary bone structures with the aim of restoring the patient's anatomical and functional relationship (Monson 2013). One of the most common conditions subject to interventions is skeletal malocclusion (SM) (Dias and Gleiser 2008). Since the first surgery performed by Hullihen (1810–1857) in 1849, numerous variants of the technique have been described (Radi Londoño 1994; Almandoz 2011). Although there is no universal technique, it is worth noting the bilateral sagittal split osteotomy (BSSO), since it represents the most widely used procedure in orthognathic surgery (Böckmann et al. 2014). However, the BSSO reports disadvantages; among these, the sensorineural alteration of the inferior alveolar nerve (IAN) stands out, the incidence of which has been widely studied in the literature (Becelli et al. 2002; Agbaje et al. 2015) and it is reported in 11.7%−24% of cases (Seeberger et al. 2013). As an alternative technique to BSSO, with the intention of preserving alveolar nerve integrity, some authors (Landes et al. 2014; Herrera-Vizcaíno et al. 2016) have opted to intervene using High oblique sagittal osteotomy (HOSO), reducing the alveolar impact in up to 0.5% of cases (Seeberger et al. 2013).