The effect of orthognathic surgery on the temporomandibular joint and oral function: a systematic review

Int. J. Oral Maxillofac. Surg. 2017; 46: 554–563 http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.ijom.2017.01.004, available online at http://www.sciencedirect.com

Systematic Review Orthognathic Surgery

The effect of orthognathic surgery on the temporomandibular joint and oral function: a systematic review

E. C. te Veldhuis1, A. H. te Veldhuis1, W. M. Bramer2, E. B. Wolvius1, M. J. Koudstaal1 1 Department of Oral and Maxillofacial Surgery, Special Dental Care and Orthodontics, Erasmus MC – University Medical Centre Rotterdam, The Netherlands; 2 Medical Library, Erasmus MC – University Medical Centre Rotterdam, The Netherlands

E. C. te Veldhuis, A. H. te Veldhuis, W. M. Bramer, E. B. Wolvius, M. J. Koudstaal: The effect of orthognathic surgery on the temporomandibular joint and oral function: a systematic review. Int. J. Oral Maxillofac. Surg. 2017; 46: 554–563. # 2017 International Association of Oral and Maxillofacial Surgeons. Published by Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

Abstract. The objective of this systematic review was to examine the effect of orthognathic surgery (OS) on the temporomandibular joint and oral function. Electronic databases were systematically searched for studies published until October 2015. Articles were assessed against predefined inclusion criteria. The included papers were divided into four groups based on the type of OS performed. The following items were recorded: quality of evidence using the Oxford Centre for Evidence-Based medicine (CEBM) criteria, number of patients, presence/absence of controls, mean age at treatment, follow-up time, clinical examination findings, bite force, use of the Helkimo Index and Research Diagnostic Criteria for Temporomandibular Disorders, imaging findings, and patient questionnaire results. A total of 4669 articles were identified; 76 relevant articles were included in the review. These studies assessed a total 3399 patients and 380 controls, with a mean age of 25.4 years. The great variety of OS techniques, examination techniques, diagnostic criteria, and imaging techniques used in the articles studied, as well as the quality of the study designs, made it difficult to compare studies and to draw conclusions. However, looking at the different aspects studied in general, it can be stated that OS seems to have little or no harmful effect on the TMJ and oral function (level of evidence: levels II, III, and IV).

Orthognathic surgery (OS) is a wellknown surgical intervention to change and/or correct the facial-related structures. OS can roughly be divided into three 0901-5027/050554 + 010

categories: maxillary surgery, mandibular surgery, and combined double-jaw surgery. The most discussed surgical strategies are the bilateral sagittal split

Key words: temporomandibular joint; oral function; mandibular movements; maximum mouth opening; orthognathic surgery; bilateral sagittal split osteotomy; vertical ramus osteotomy; Le Fort I osteotomy; bimaxillary osteotomy; imaging. Accepted for publication 9 January 2017 Available online 4 February 2017

osteotomy (BSSO), vertical ramus osteotomy (VRO), mandibular midline distraction (MMD), surgically assisted rapid maxillary expansion (SARME), Le Fort

# 2017 International Association of Oral and Maxillofacial Surgeons. Published by Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

Effect of orthognathic surgery on TMJ function I osteotomy (LFI), and bimaxillary osteotomy (BIMAX). The main indications for OS are to improve function (including malocclusion, mastication, speech, respiratory function, sleep apnoea, and ocular function), minimize the treatment time, and obtain stability following orthodontic treatment, which includes the prevention of relapse.1,2 Another indication for OS is to improve aesthetics, e.g. in cases of congenital dentofacial discrepancies, acquired dentofacial discrepancies, and growth disturbances, and to obtain harmony and balance in facial appearance.1,2 OS is considered a low risk and successful procedure.2 Successful outcomes in terms of oral function can be measured in many different ways, for example through the absence or presence of joint noises, mandibular movements, maximum mouth opening, pain on palpation, bite force, or patient satisfaction (on facial appearance and chewing ability). Qualifying and quantifying oral function is complex and there are few standardized procedures. Therefore, it would be interesting to identify the different outcomes of measuring oral function described and the effect of OS on the temporomandibular joint (TMJ) as reported in the literature. Prospective and long-term studies on the effects of OS on the TMJ, masticatory muscles, and function are still lacking. The aim of this study was to systematically review the scientific literature addressing the effect of OS on the TMJ and oral function. Materials and methods Search strategy

The Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) guidelines were used in this review.3 An electronic search was conducted in seven databases: Embase, MEDLINE Ovid, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, Web of Science, PubMed (the subset as supplied by publishers), CINAHL (EBSCOhost), and Google Scholar. The search strategy combined terms for OS or mandibular or maxillary osteotomy with terms for TMJ or oral function. For the Embase, MEDLINE, and CINAHL searches, thesaurus terms were used alongside words in the title and/or abstract; in the other databases, only words in the title and/or abstract were used. The databases were searched from inception until October 2015. The search was limited to human studies, but no limitations on language were applied.

The full search strategies are given in Appendix A. The reference lists of all relevant articles were screened for additional relevant sources. Data collection and analysis

Two of the review authors (EtV and AtV) screened the titles and abstracts (when available) of all reports independently. For all studies that appeared to meet the inclusion criteria, or when data in the title and/or abstract were insufficient, the fulltext version was obtained to allow a definitive decision to be made. Both authors read the full-text articles and each author made an independent decision as to whether the studies met the inclusion criteria. Any disagreement was resolved by discussion; when no agreement could be reached, an additional researcher was involved (MK) until consensus was reached. Included studies had to describe the treatment of humans and had to be published in English. Articles focusing on topics other than treatment, on other conditions not specified as OS and involvement of the TMJ, on comorbidity, or on the treatment of craniofacial syndromes were excluded. Review articles, studies describing the same patients, abstracts or posters presented at meetings, and articles published before 1990 were also excluded. The articles included in the review were divided into the following four groups based on the type of orthognathic intervention: BSSO, VRO, LFI, and BIMAX. Several papers reported more than one of these groups; these papers were included for all groups that were described separately. The following items were recorded for all of the articles included: quality of evidence using the Oxford Centre for Evidence-Based Medicine (CEBM) criteria,4 number of patients, presence or absence of a control group, mean age at treatment, follow-up time, clinical examination (including mandibular movements, maximum mouth opening, and pain on palpation), use of the Helkimo Index,5 the Research Diagnostic Criteria for Temporomandibular Disorders6 (RDC/TMD), imaging (including computed tomography (CT), cone beam computed tomography (CBCT), magnetic resonance imaging (MRI), panoramic radiography, tomography, lateral radiography, transcranial radiography, and anterior–posterior radiography), and patient questionnaire results. Results

After de-duplication, 2442 references were retrieved. The titles and abstracts

555

of the 2442 articles were screened. In the case where the abstract was missing and/or it was questionable whether the abstract met the above-mentioned criteria, the full-text article was retrieved so as to avoid excluding any article of possible relevance. A total of 2151 papers were excluded for various reasons. The remaining 291 articles were screened on reading the full-text. Another 215 articles were excluded. The full-text was not available for five papers. No additional relevant articles were identified through the reference list search. Therefore 76 articles were included in the review. The PRISMA flowchart showing the number of articles remaining at each stage of the sequence of identification, screening, and final inclusion is illustrated in Fig. 1.3 An overview of all included studies is given in Table 1. These papers were divided into the following four groups based on the type of orthognathic intervention: BSSO, VRO, LFI, and BIMAX; the items mentioned above were recorded (Tables 2–5). Discussion

In almost all of the articles, the number of subjects studied was low. Combining the studies gave a total of 3399 patients and 380 controls. All control subjects in all groups were healthy subjects, with a complete dentition, little or no dental restoration, and a class I occlusion.7–18 Clinical examination indexes mentioned in the articles included were the Helkimo index18–23 and the RDC/TMD Axis II24; none of the other articles specifically described the index used to classify the data. Mandibular movement and maximum mouth opening

Mandibular movements and maximum mouth opening were scored by many articles, especially for the BSSO and VRO groups.19–23,25–44 An initial decrease in maximum mouth opening at 1–6 months post-surgery was described in almost all papers. The causes of this decrease in maximum mouth opening included intermaxillary fixation, jaw repositioning in combination with orthodontic treatment changing the position of the teeth, and the formation of scar tissue and/or inflammation.45 Approximately two-thirds to three-quarters of all patients in the BSSO and IVRO groups showed no difference in mandibular movements and maximum mouth opening after a follow-up period of 1–2 years. A small group showed a

556 [(Fig._1)TD$IG]

te Veldhuis et al. Identification Records identified through database searching (n = 4669)

Additional records identified through other sources (n = 0)

Records after removal of duplicates (n = 2442)

Screening Records screened (n = 2442)

Records excluded (n = 2151) Full-text records excluded with reason (n = 215)

Full-text records assessed for eligibility (n = 291)

Outcome measures: 88 Type of surgery: 56 No OS treatment: 37 Type of publication: 29 Untraceable: 5

Included Total records included (n = 76)

Fig. 1. Data extraction flowchart, according to the PRISMA statement3 (OS, orthognathic surgery).

decrease in mandibular movements and mandibular opening. Although the differences were found to be significant, they amounted to only a few millimetres.19– 21,23,27,35,36,40,41 A decrease in objective maximum mouth opening does not necessarily result in a subjective and/or objective limited mandibular mouth opening. No conclusions were drawn regarding the clinical relevance of this change, or the problems (if any) facing these patients in everyday life. Pre-surgical and post-surgical mandibular movements and maximum mouth opening were about the same for the LFI and BIMAX groups after a follow-up period of 1–2 years.20,21,25,28,29,31,43,46–50

Palpation

The majority of patients in the BSSO, VRO, LFI, and BIMAX groups showed a decrease in post-surgery pain on palpation. None of the studies described the amount of pressure applied or the specific palpation sites, except for those studies

Table 1. Overview of all included papers. Author and year 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27

Alder et al. (1999)54[5_TD$IF] Al-Gunaid et al. (2008)25 Aoyama et al. (2005)26 Athanasiou and Mavreas (1991)76[6_TD$IF] Athanasiou and Melsen (1992)19 Athanasiou and Yucel-Eroglu (1994)20 Athanasiou et al. (1996)21 Borstlap et al. (2004)27 Borstlap et al. (2004)74[7_TD$IF] Boutros et al. (2008)82[8_TD$IF] Boyd et al. (1991)28 Chen et al. (2013)48 Choi et al. (2014)8 Cortez and Passeri (2007)77[9_TD$IF] Cottrell et al. (1997)78[10_TD$IF] Cutbirth et al. (1998)73[1_TD$IF] de Paula et al. (2013)59[12_TD$IF] Ellis III et al. (1996)17 Fang et al. (2009)29 Farella et al. (2007)49 Fernandez Sanroman et al. (1997)18 Flynn et al. (1990)30 Ha et al. (2013)65[13_TD$IF] Harada et al. (2000)9 Harada et al. (2003)51 Harper (1990)31 Harris et al. (1999)55[14_TD$IF]

CEBM level of evidence IV IV IV IV IV IV IV IV IV IV IV IV III IV IV IV IV III IV IV III IV IV III IV IV IV

Sample size (n) patients/controls 21 31 37 24 36 82 43 222 222 7 22 31 78/67 11 22 100 50 24/24 24 14 24/10 40 22 25/20 24 54 21

Effect of orthognathic surgery on TMJ function Table 1 (Continued )

Imaging

CEBM level of evidence

Author and year 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60 61 62 63 64 65 66 67 68 69 70 71 72 73 74 75 76

557

34

Hashimoto et al. (2008) Hu et al. (2000)35 Hunt and Cunningham (1997)52[15_TD$IF] Iwase et al. (1998)10 Iwase et al. (2006)11 Jung et al. (2009)44 Kallela et al. (2005)22 Katsumata et al. (2006)67[16_TD$IF] Kawakami et al. (2009)32 Kawamata et al. (1998)56[17_TD$IF] Kerstens et al. (1990)46 Kikuta et al. (1994)53[18_TD$IF] Kim et al. (2009)68[19_TD$IF] Kim et al. (2010)64[20_TD$IF] Kim et al. (2011)63[21_TD$IF] Kim et al. (2012)57[2_TD$IF] Kim et al. (2013)24 Kim et al. (2014)61[23_TD$IF] Lai et al. (2002)80[24_TD$IF] Lee and Park (2002)62[25_TD$IF] Lee et al. (2008)69[26_TD$IF] Nakata et al. (2007)12 Nemeth et al. (2000)84[27_TD$IF] Nishimura et al. (1997)33 Nishimura et al. (2004)70[28_TD$IF] Ohkura et al. (2001)13 Park et al. (2012)60[29_TD$IF] Rebellato et al. (1999)81[30_TD$IF] Rodrigues-Garcia et al. (1998)36 Rustemeyer and Gregersen (2012)83[31_TD$IF] Scheerlinck et al. (1994)37 Smith et al. (1992)23 Song et al. (1997)47 Stroster and Pangrazio-Kulbersh (1994)79[32_TD$IF] Throckmorton et al. (1995)38 Ueki et al. (2001)41 Ueki et al. (2007)72[3_TD$IF] Ueki et al. (2007)71[34_TD$IF] Ueki et al. (2008)66[35_TD$IF] Ueki et al. (2008)43 Ueki et al. (2009)42 Ueki et al. (2009)58[36_TD$IF] Ueki et al. (2014)50 van Den Braber et al. (2004)14 van den Braber et al. (2006)15 Wang et al. (2009)16 Yang et al. (2005)39 Zarrinkelk et al. (1996)7 Zimmer (1993)40

that used the Helkimo index or the RDC/ TMD.

Bite force

Bite force was measured with different devices: Dental Prescale (Fuji Photo Film Co., Tokyo, Japan)8,9,12,13,51 and the associated analysis apparatus (Occluzer, Dental Occlusion Pressuregraph; Fuji Photo Film Co.), a bite force transducer with the ends covered with polypropylene tubing and opening the mouth to 15 mm,7,17,38,47[37_TD$IF] a

IV IV IV IV IV IV IV IV IV IV IV IV IV IV IV IV IV IV IV IV IV IV II IV III III IV IV IV IV IV IV III IV III IV IV III III III III IV IV III III III IV III IV

Sample size (n) patients/controls 16 50 42 23/10 27/27 217 40 85 22 5 41 30 23 26 26 43 22 33 23 30 36 36/30 140 46 15 57/40 22 29 124 50 103 22 9/26 53 24/26 22/20 45 50 47 68 29 26 73 11/12 12/12 14/30 67 15/26 21

bite fork with two force transducers,14,15 a custom-built bite force gauge with a transducer element,52[15_TD$IF] a T-scan system,10 and an occlusal force meter (MPM-300; Electric Light, Tokyo, Japan) and jaw force meter (MPM-2401; Nihon Kohden).39,53[38_TD$IF] For almost all patients in the different surgical intervention groups, the maximum voluntary bite force showed a general decrease in occlusal force during the first few months after surgery, and then a gradual increase in bite force towards the level of the controls.7–10,13,17, 38,47,51–[18_TD$IF]53[39_TD$IF]

Imaging studies described the differences in condylar joint space, condylar position, disc position pre- and postoperative, and condylar remodelling. Computed tomography: CBCT and CT

A change in condylar position to a more superior and posterior position in the fossa was described for the VRO group and BSSO group when it was an advancement procedure.54–[17_TD$IF]56[5_TD$IF] A more outward rotation of the condylar long axis was seen in the VRO group.56[17_TD$IF] In the case of setback, no change in condylar position was seen in the BSSO, BIMAX, and VRO groups.57,58[40_TD$IF] Furthermore, no changes were found in the LFI group.18 On the other hand, an initial change in condylar position was found for the LFI and BIMAX groups in four studies.57,59–[23_TD$IF]61[41_TD$IF] An inferior and inward rotation of the condyle was found in the BSSO and BIMAX groups62–[35_TD$IF]66[42_TD$IF] and a more outward rotation of the condyle was described in the VRO group.56[17_TD$IF] Remodelling, as defined by a newly formed bony layer in the posterior part of the condylar head, was reported for the VRO, BSSO, and BIMAX groups.56,59,60,67[43_TD$IF] Magnetic resonance imaging (MRI)

For the BSSO group, no change was found in articular disc position29,32,68,69[4_TD$IF] or articular disc length29 on MRI. It is suggested that a double contour-like demarcation line on MRI might correspond to bone formation. Remodelling on the superior surface of the condylar head was seen in some joints on MRI.67[16_TD$IF] Joint effusion was found and resolved after 4 months.70[28_TD$IF] In the VRO group, there were significant condylar position changes and horizontal changes in the condylar long axis on both sides.71[34_TD$IF] No changes occurred in joint discs that were normal preoperatively, and an improvement of anteriorly displaced discs to a more normal position in discs with anterior displacement with or without reduction preoperatively was seen.[1_TD$IF] Remodelling on the superior surface of the condylar head was seen in some joints on MRI.67[16_TD$IF] Joint effusion was found and resolved after 4 months.70[28_TD$IF] No TMJ changes were found in the LFI group.18 In the BIMAX group, a change was found in the direction and the moment arms of the masseter and medial pterygoid muscles. No change in articular disc position29,72[45_TD$IF]2 or articular disc length29 was found on MRI. Preoperative anterior disc

558

te Veldhuis et al.

Table 2. Type of surgery: bilateral sagittal split osteotomy (BSSO). Total articles scored for this item Total number of patients Mean age of patients, years Mean follow-up time, months Clinical examination Mandibular movements Maximum mouth opening Palpation Bite force Helkimo index/RDC/TMD Imaging (CB)CT MRI Panoramic radiography Tomography Lateral radiography Transcranial radiography Questionnaires

1932 26.3 24.7

Outcome

52 46 44 12 20 7 13 4

5 5 0 9 2

smaller smaller more pain increase improvement

7 no change 15 no change 2 less pain 1 decrease 1 worsening

11 7 3 2 4 1 3

7 2 3 2 1 1 3

change change change change change change improvement

4 no change 5 no change 2 no change

5 no change 3 no change 1 no change

1 NM

CBCT, cone beam computed tomography; CT, computed tomography; MRI, magnetic resonance imaging; NM, not mentioned; RDC/TMD, Research Diagnostic Criteria for Temporomandibular Disorders. Table 3. Type of surgery: vertical ramus osteotomy (VRO). Total articles scored for this item Total number of patients Mean age of patients, years Mean follow-up time, months Clinical examination Mandibular movements Maximum mouth opening Palpation Bite force Helkimo index/RDC/TMD Imaging (CB)CT MRI Tomography Lateral radiography Transcranial radiography Anterior–posterior Questionnaires

520 23.4 16.9

Outcome

17 12 16 6 8 5 2 3

2 3 1 2 2

smaller smaller more pain increase improvement

4 4 2 4 – – –

4 4 1 4

change change change change

3 no change 5 no change 2 no change

1 NM 2 NM

1 worsening

1 no change

CBCT, cone beam computed tomography; CT, computed tomography; MRI, magnetic resonance imaging; NM, not mentioned; RDC/TMD, Research Diagnostic Criteria for Temporomandibular Disorders. Table 4. Type of surgery: Le Fort I osteotomy (LFI). Total articles scored for this item Total number of patients Mean age of patients, years Mean follow-up time, months Clinical examination Mandibular movements Maximum mouth opening Palpation Bite force Helkimo index/RDC/TMD Imaging (CB)CT MRI Panoramic radiography Tomography Lateral radiography Transcranial radiography Fluoroscopic imaging Questionnaires

130 23.9 10.5

Outcome

9 3 10 5 5 3 2 3

4 4 2 2 1

no change no change less pain increase improvement

1 NM 1 NM 1 NM

2 1 1 2 – 1 1 3

1 1 1 2

change no change no change no change

1 no change

1 worsening

1 no change

1 no change 1 no change 3 improvement

CBCT, cone beam computed tomography; CT, computed tomography; MRI, magnetic resonance imaging; NM, not mentioned; RDC/TMD, Research Diagnostic Criteria for Temporomandibular Disorders.

Effect of orthognathic surgery on TMJ function

559

Table 5. Type of surgery: bimaxillary osteotomy (BIMAX). Total articles scored for this item Total number of patients Mean age of patients, years Mean follow-up time, months Clinical examination Mandibular movements Maximum mouth opening Palpation Bite force Helkimo index/RDC/TMD Imaging (CB)CT MRI Panoramic radiography Tomography Lateral radiography Transcranial radiography Fluoroscopic imaging Questionnaires

549 24.6 11.7

Outcome

25 20 23 4 8 3 4 3

4 6 2 4 2

7 4 – 1 4 1 1 4

6 change 3 change 1 3 1 1 3

no change no change less pain increase improvement

change change change no change improvement

2 smaller 1 no change 1 no change 1 no change 1 no change 1 no change 1 no change

CBCT, cone beam computed tomography; CT, computed tomography; MRI, magnetic resonance imaging; NM, not mentioned; RDC/TMD, Research Diagnostic Criteria for Temporomandibular Disorders.

displacement with reduction and without reduction did not change postoperatively.72[3_TD$IF] On the other hand, an improvement in anterior disc displacement with or without reduction for a short period post-surgery could be seen following BIMAX surgery. [1_TD$IF]Panoramic radiography

For the BSSO and LFI groups, three articles described a greater vertical change in the condyles, due to condylar resorption.37,46,73[46_TD$IF] For the BSSO group, remodelling was reported in 16% and resorption of the condylar head in 4%.74[7_TD$IF] The use of panoramic radiographs as a diagnostic tool was reported in one study.75[47_TD$IF] No articles reported on panoramic radiograph changes for the VRO and BIMAX groups.

seen.67[16_TD$IF] In the BIMAX group, obvious changes in condylar position were seen; the condyles tended to be located in a concentric position in relation to the glenoid fossa at 3 months after surgery.48 Although mentioned as a diagnostic tool to measure the position of the condyles, lateral radiographs were used only for cephalometric evaluation.7,51,79–[30_TD$IF]81[50_TD$IF] No articles were found describing lateral radiographs in the LFI group. Transcranial radiography

Changes in condylar position79[32_TD$IF] and condylar remodelling and resorption46 were seen in the BSSO and BIMAX groups. No changes were seen in the LFI group.46 No articles reported on transcranial radiographs in the VRO group.

Tomography

A condylar anterior or posterior displacement was seen in the BSSO group.39 In the VRO group, no major alterations were seen in the TMJ,21,76[48_TD$IF] but there was an increase in posterior and anterior spaces between the condyle and fossa.21 No changes in the TMJ were seen on tomography for the LFI group.21,77[49_TD$IF] A decrease in the superior and posterior regions was seen in the BIMAX group.78[10_TD$IF] Lateral radiography

In the BSSO group, no significant effect on TMJ morphology and position was seen.29 In another article, a posterior displacement of the condyle was seen.35 In the VRO group, a more anterior–inferior displacement of the condyle was seen.35 Signs of condylar remodelling were

Intraoperative fluoroscopy

Intraoperative fluoroscopy was used to evaluate the condylar position in OS. This method has the potential advantages of speed, simplicity, efficacy, and safety. No condyle was found to be displaced in the LFI and BIMAX groups on intraoperative fluoroscopy.82[8_TD$IF] Questionnaires

For the BIMAX group, one article described questionnaires based on the Oral Health Impact Profile.83[31_TD$IF] This article concluded that orthognathic patients generally experience both functional and psychosocial benefits after surgical–orthodontic treatment. For the BSSO and LFI groups, the RDC/TMD Axis II was used in one article.24 The authors observed that the depression index, grade of

non-specific physical symptoms, and chronic pain scale decreased after surgery, and the grade of non-specific physical symptoms including pain showed a significant decrease after surgery.24 In conclusion, the great variety of OS techniques, examination techniques, diagnostic criteria, and imaging techniques used in the articles studied, as well as the quality of the study designs, makes it difficult to compare studies and to draw conclusions. Only one RCT was found.84[27_TD$IF] All articles scored low on methodological quality, and due to the heterogeneity in the articles and subsequent results, a metaanalysis of the data was not possible. The generally suboptimal quality of the literature highlights the need for better quality studies with clearly defined examination techniques and criteria to diagnose and evaluate the effect of OS on the TMJ. These will require better defined samples of subjects. Furthermore, more randomized controlled clinical trials with welldescribed OS are required. However, looking at the different aspects studied in general, it can be stated that OS seems to have little or no harmful effect on the TMJ and oral function. Funding

This research received no specific grant from any funding agency in the public, commercial, or not-for-profit sectors. Competing interests

There are no conflicts of interest in the materials or subject matter dealt with in the manuscript.

560

te Veldhuis et al.

Ethical approval

Approval was obtained from the Medical Ethics Committee of Erasmus University Medical Centre Rotterdam. Patient consent

Not required.

Appendix A. Search strategies Embase

(‘orthognathic surgery’/de OR ‘mandible osteotomy’/de OR ‘maxilla osteotomy’/de OR ((‘mandible reconstruction’/ exp OR mandible/de) AND osteotomy/ exp) OR (((orthognath* OR mandibular OR transmandibular OR ramal OR ramus OR Lefort OR bimaxillar*) NEAR/3 (surger* OR distraction OR osteodistraction or osteotomy* OR setback OR ‘sagittal split’ OR advancement*)) OR ((maxillar* OR palatal) NEAR/3 expansion*)):ab,ti) AND (‘temporomandibular joint disorder’/de OR ‘temporomandibular joint’/ de OR ((temporomandibular NEAR/3 (dysfunction* OR function* OR disorder* OR pain*)) OR ((articulat* OR joint* OR disc* OR disk*) NEAR/3 (temporomandibular* OR craniomandibular* OR mandibular* OR mandibulotempor*)) OR ((oral OR masticat* OR bite OR chewing OR mandibul* OR stomatognathic OR mouth) NEAR/3 (force OR function* OR ability* OR ‘range of motion’ OR movement*)) OR ((condyl* OR disc* OR disk*) NEAR/3 (displace* OR position*)) OR (intern* NEAR/3 derangement*) OR ‘interincisal opening’ OR TMJ):ab,ti) NOT ([animals]/lim NOT [humans]/lim) MEDLINE OvidSP

(‘orthognathic surgery’/ OR ‘Orthognathic Surgical Procedures’/ OR ‘Osteotomy, Sagittal Split Ramus’/ OR ‘Mandibular Osteotomy’/ OR ‘Maxillary Osteotomy’/ OR ((‘mandible’/ OR ‘Mandibular Reconstruction’/) AND osteotomy/ ) OR (((orthognath* OR mandibular OR transmandibular OR ramal OR ramus OR Lefort OR bimaxillar*) ADJ3 (surger* OR distraction OR osteodistraction or osteotomy* OR setback OR ‘sagittal split’ OR advancement*)) OR ((maxillar* OR palatal) ADJ3 expansion*)).ab,ti.) AND (‘temporomandibular joint disorders’/ OR exp ‘temporomandibular joint’/ OR ((temporomandibular ADJ3 (dysfunction*

OR function* OR disorder* OR pain*)) OR ((articulat* OR joint* OR disc* OR disk*) ADJ3 (temporomandibular* OR craniomandibular* OR mandibular* OR mandibulotempor*)) OR ((oral OR masticat* OR bite OR chewing OR mandibul* OR stomatognathic OR mouth) ADJ3 (force OR function* OR ability* OR ‘range of motion’ OR movement*)) OR ((condyl* OR disc* OR disk*) ADJ3 (displace* OR position*)) OR (intern* ADJ3 derangement*) OR ‘interincisal opening’ OR TMJ).ab,ti.) NOT (exp animals/NOT humans/) Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials

((((orthognath* OR mandibular OR transmandibular OR ramal OR ramus OR Lefort OR bimaxillar*) NEAR/3 (surger* OR distraction OR osteodistraction or osteotomy* OR setback OR ‘sagittal split’ OR advancement*)) OR ((maxillar* OR palatal) NEAR/3 expansion*)):ab,ti) AND (((temporomandibular NEAR/3 (dysfunction* OR function* OR disorder* OR pain*)) OR ((articulat* OR joint* OR disc* OR disk*) NEAR/3 (temporomandibular* OR craniomandibular* OR mandibular* OR mandibulotempor*)) OR ((oral OR masticat* OR bite OR chewing OR mandibul* OR stomatognathic OR mouth) NEAR/3 (force OR function* OR ability* OR ‘range of motion’ OR movement*)) OR ((condyl* OR disc* OR disk*) NEAR/3 (displace* OR position*)) OR (intern* NEAR/3 derangement*) OR ‘interincisal opening’ OR TMJ):ab,ti) Web of Science

TS=(((((orthognath* OR mandibular OR transmandibular OR ramal OR ramus OR Lefort OR bimaxillar*) NEAR/3 (surger* OR distraction OR osteodistraction or osteotomy* OR setback OR ‘sagittal split’ OR advancement*)) OR ((maxillar* OR palatal) NEAR/3 expansion*))) AND (((temporomandibular NEAR/3 (dysfunction* OR function* OR disorder* OR pain*)) OR ((articulat* OR joint* OR disc* OR disk*) NEAR/3 (temporomandibular* OR craniomandibular* OR mandibular* OR mandibulotempor*)) OR ((oral OR masticat* OR bite OR chewing OR mandibul* OR stomatognathic OR mouth) NEAR/3 (force OR function* OR ability* OR ‘range of motion’ OR movement*)) OR ((condyl* OR disc* OR disk*) NEAR/ 3 (displace* OR position*)) OR (intern* NEAR/3 derangement*) OR ‘interincisal

opening’ OR TMJ)) NOT ((animal* OR dog OR dogs OR rabbit* OR mice OR mouse OR rat OR rats OR swine OR monkey* OR ape OR goat* OR sheep) NOT (human* OR patient*))) CINAHL

(MH ‘orthognathic surgery+’ OR MH ‘Orthognathic Surgical Procedures+’ OR ((MH ‘mandible+’) AND MH osteotomy+) OR (((orthognath* OR mandibular OR transmandibular OR ramal OR ramus OR Lefort OR bimaxillar*) N3 (surger* OR distraction OR osteodistraction or osteotomy* OR setback OR ‘sagittal split’ OR advancement*)) OR ((maxillar* OR palatal) N3 expansion*))) AND (MH ‘Temporomandibular Joint Diseases+’ OR MH ‘temporomandibular joint+’ OR ((temporomandibular N3 (dysfunction* OR function* OR disorder* OR pain*)) OR ((articulat* OR joint* OR disc* OR disk*) N3 (temporomandibular* OR craniomandibular* OR mandibular* OR mandibulotempor*)) OR ((oral OR masticat* OR bite OR chewing OR mandibul* OR stomatognathic OR mouth) N3 (force OR function* OR ability* OR ‘range of motion’ OR movement*)) OR ((condyl* OR disc* OR disk*) N3 (displace* OR position*)) OR (intern* N3 derangement*) OR ‘interincisal opening’ OR TMJ)) NOT (MH animals+NOT humans+) PubMed

((((orthognath*[tiab] OR mandibular[tiab] OR transmandibular[tiab] OR ramal[tiab] OR ramus[tiab] OR Lefort[tiab] OR bimaxillar*[tiab]) AND (surger*[tiab] OR distraction[tiab] OR osteodistraction[tiab] OR osteotomy* [tiab] OR setback[tiab] OR ‘sagittal split’[tiab] OR advancement*[tiab])) OR ((maxillar*[tiab] OR palatal) AND expansion*[tiab]))) AND (((temporomandibular[tiab] AND (dysfunction*[tiab] OR function*[tiab] OR disorder*[tiab] OR pain*[tiab])) OR ((articulat* [tiab] OR joint*[tiab] OR disc*[tiab] OR disk*[tiab]) AND (temporomandibular* [tiab] OR craniomandibular*[tiab] OR mandibular*[tiab] OR mandibulotempor*[tiab])) OR ((oral[tiab] OR masticat*[tiab] OR bite[tiab] OR chewing[tiab] OR mandibul*[tiab] OR stomatognathic[tiab] OR mouth[tiab]) AND (force[tiab] OR function*[tiab] OR ability*[tiab] OR ‘range of motion’[tiab] OR movement*[tiab])) OR ((condyl* [tiab] OR disc*[tiab] OR disk*[tiab])

Effect of orthognathic surgery on TMJ function AND (displace*[tiab] OR position* [tiab])) OR (intern*[tiab] AND derangement*[tiab]) OR ‘interincisal opening’ OR TMJ[tiab])) AND publisher[sb]

Google Scholar

‘orthognathic surgery’|‘mandible|mandibular|maxilla|transmandibular osteodistraction|osteotomy|osteotomies’|‘maxillar|palatal expansion’ ‘temporomandibular joint|dysfunction|function|disorder|pain’|‘oral|bite|mandibular force|functioning|ability|movement’ References 1. Proffit WR. Contemporary orthodontics. 3rd ed. St. Louis, MO: Mosby; 2000: 4. 2. Turvey TA, Scully JR, Waite PD, Costello BJ, Ruiz RL. Oral and maxillofacial surgery, 2nd ed., vol. III. St. Louis, MO: Saunders; 2009. p. 72–81. 3. Moher D, Liberati A, Tetzlaff J, Altman DG, PRISMA Group. Preferred reporting items for systematic reviews and meta-analyses: the PRISMA statement. PLoS Med 2009;6:e1000097. 4. Oxford Centre for Evidence-Based Medicine. OCEBM levels of evidence. http:// www.cebm.net/index.aspx?o=5653 [accessibility verified 09.01.17]. 5. Helkimo M. Studies on function and dysfunction of the masticatory system. II. Index for anamnestic and clinical dysfunction and occlusal state. Sven Tandlak Tidskr 1974;67:101–21. 6. Dworkin SF, LeResche L. Research diagnostic criteria for temporomandibular disorders: review, criteria, examinations and specifications, critique. J Craniomandib Disord 1992;6:301–55. 7. Zarrinkelk HM, Throckmorton GS, Ellis III E, Sinn DP. Functional and morphologic changes after combined maxillary intrusion and mandibular advancement surgery. J Oral Maxillofac Surg 1996;54:828–37. 8. Choi YJ, Lim H, Chung CJ, Park KH, Kim KH. Two-year follow-up of changes in bite force and occlusal contact area after intraoral vertical ramus osteotomy with and without Le Fort I osteotomy. Int J Oral Maxillofac Surg 2014;43:742–7. 9. Harada K, Watanabe M, Ohkura K, Enomoto S. Measure of bite force and occlusal contact area before and after bilateral sagittal split ramus osteotomy of the mandible using a new pressure-sensitive device: a preliminary report. J Oral Maxillofac Surg 2000;58:370–3. 10. Iwase M, Sugimori M, Kurachi Y, Nagumo M. Changes in bite force and occlusal contacts in patients treated for mandibular prognathism by orthognathic surgery. J Oral Maxillofac Surg 1998;56:850–6.

11. Iwase M, Ohashi M, Tachibana H, Toyoshima T, Nagumo M. Bite force, occlusal contact area and masticatory efficiency before and after orthognathic surgical correction of mandibular prognathism. Int J Oral Maxillofac Surg 2006;35:1102–7. 12. Nakata Y, Ueda HM, Kato M, Tabe H, Shikata-Wakisaka N, Matsumoto E, et al. Changes in stomatognathic function induced by orthognathic surgery in patients with mandibular prognathism. J Oral Maxillofac Surg 2007;65:444–51. 13. Ohkura K, Harada K, Morishima S, Enomoto S. Changes in bite force and occlusal contact area after orthognathic surgery for correction of mandibular prognathism. Oral Surg Oral Med Oral Pathol Oral Radiol Endod 2001;91:141–5. 14. van Den Braber W, Van Der Glas H, Van Der Bilt A, Bosman F. Masticatory function in retrognathic patients, before and after mandibular advancement surgery. J Oral Maxillofac Surg 2004;62:549–54. 15. van den Braber W, van der Bilt A, van der Glas H, Rosenberg T, Koole R. The influence of mandibular advancement surgery on oral function in retrognathic patients: a 5-year follow-up study. J Oral Maxillofac Surg 2006;64:1237–40. 16. Wang D, Fu H, Zeng R, Yang X. Changes of mandibular movement tracings after the correction of mandibular protrusion by bilateral sagittal split ramus osteotomy. J Oral Maxillofac Surg 2009;67:2238–44. 17. Ellis III E, Throckmorton GS, Sinn DP. Bite forces before and after surgical correction of mandibular prognathism. J Oral Maxillofac Surg 1996;54:176–81. 18. Fernandez Sanroman J, Gomez Gonzalez JM, Alonso del Hoyo J, Monje Gil F. Morphometric and morphological changes in the temporomandibular joint after orthognathic surgery: a magnetic resonance imaging and computed tomography prospective study. J Craniomaxillofac Surg 1997;25: 139–48. 19. Athanasiou AE, Melsen B. Craniomandibular dysfunction following surgical correction of mandibular prognathism. Angle Orthod 1992;62:9–14. 20. Athanasiou AE, Yucel-Eroglu E. Short-term consequences of orthognathic surgery on stomatognathic function. Eur J Orthod 1994;16:491–9. 21. Athanasiou AE, Elefteriadis JN, Dre E. Short-term functional alterations in the stomatognathic system after orthodontic-surgical management of skeletal vertical excess problems. Int J Adult Orthodon Orthognath Surg 1996;11:339–46. 22. Kallela I, Laine P, Suuronen R, Lindqvist C, Iizuka T. Assessment of material- and technique-related complications following sagittal split osteotomies stabilized by biodegradable polylactide screws. Oral Surg Oral Med Oral Pathol Oral Radiol Endod 2005;99:4–10.

561

23. Smith V, Williams B, Stapleford R. Rigid internal fixation and the effects on the temporomandibular joint and masticatory system: a prospective study. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop 1992;102:491–500. 24. Kim YK, Kim SG, Kim JH, Yun PY, Oh JS. Temporomandibular joint and psychosocial evaluation of patients after orthognathic surgery: a preliminary study. J Craniomaxillofac Surg 2013;41:e83–6. 25. Al-Gunaid T, Yamada K, Takagi R, Saito C, Saito I. Postoperative stability of bimaxillary surgery in class III patients with mandibular protrusion and mandibular deviation: a frontal cephalometric study. Int J Oral Maxillofac Surg 2008;37:992–8. 26. Aoyama S, Kino K, Kobayashi J, Yoshimasu H, Amagasa T. Clinical evaluation of the temporomandibular joint following orthognathic surgery—multiple logistic regression analysis. J Med Dent Sci 2005;52:109–14. 27. Borstlap WA, Stoelinga PJ, Hoppenreijs TJ, van’t Hof MA. 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 2004;33:433–41. 28. Boyd SB, Karas ND, Sinn DP. Recovery of mandibular mobility following orthognathic surgery. J Oral Maxillofac Surg 1991;49:924–31. 29. Fang B, Shen GF, Yang C, Wu Y, Feng YM, Mao LX, et al. Changes in condylar and joint disc positions after bilateral sagittal split ramus osteotomy for correction of mandibular prognathism. Int J Oral Maxillofac Surg 2009;38:726–30. 30. Flynn B, Brown DT, Lapp TH, Bussard DA, Roberts WE. A comparative study of temporomandibular symptoms following mandibular advancement by bilateral sagittal split osteotomies: rigid versus nonrigid fixation. Oral Surg Oral Med Oral Pathol 1990;70:372–80. 31. Harper RP. Analysis of temporomandibular joint function after orthognathic surgery using condylar path tracings. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop 1990;97:480–8. 32. Kawakami M, Yamamoto K, Inoue T, Kajihara A, Fujimoto M, Kirita T. Disk position and temporomandibular joint structure associated with mandibular setback in mandibular asymmetry patients. Angle Orthod 2009;79:521–7. 33. Nishimura A, Sakurada S, Iwase M, Nagumo M. Positional changes in the mandibular condyle and amount of mouth opening after sagittal split ramus osteotomy with rigid or nonrigid osteosynthesis. J Oral Maxillofac Surg 1997;55:672–8. 34. Hashimoto T, Kuroda S, Lihua E, Tanimoto Y, Miyawaki S, Takano-Yamamoto T. Correlation between craniofacial and condylar path asymmetry. J Oral Maxillofac Surg 2008;66:2020–7. 35. Hu J, Wang D, Zou S. Effects of mandibular setback on the temporomandibular joint: a

562

36.

37.

38.

39.

40.

41.

42.

43.

44.

45.

46.

47.

48.

te Veldhuis et al.

comparison of oblique and sagittal split ramus osteotomy. J Oral Maxillofac Surg 2000;58:375–80. Rodrigues-Garcia RC, Sakai S, Rugh JD, Hatch JP, Tiner BD, Sickels van JE, et al. Effects of major class II occlusal corrections on temporomandibular signs and symptoms. J Orofac Pain 1998;12:185–92. Scheerlinck JP, Stoelinga PJ, Blijdorp PA, Brouns JJ, Nijs ML. Sagittal split advancement osteotomies stabilized with miniplates. A 2–5-year follow-up. Int J Oral Maxillofac Surg 1994;23:127–31. Throckmorton GS, Ellis E, Sinn DP. Functional characteristics of retrognathic patients before and after mandibular advancement surgery. J Oral Maxillofac Surg 1995;53:898–908. Yang XW, Dong YJ, Long X, Zhang GZ, Kao CT. The evaluation of jaw function subsequent to bilateral sagittal split osteotomy. Oral Surg Oral Med Oral Pathol Oral Radiol Endod 2005;100:10–6. Zimmer B. Correlations between the loss of acoustic TMJ symptoms and alterations in mandibular mobility after surgical mandibular advancement. Eur J Orthod 1993;15:229–34. Ueki K, Nakagawa K, Takatsuka S, Yamamoto E. Plate fixation after mandibular osteotomy. Int J Oral Maxillofac Surg 2001;30:490–6. Ueki K, Marukawa K, Hashiba Y, Nakagawa K, Degerliyurt K, Yamamoto E. Changes in the duration of the chewing cycle in patients with skeletal class III with and without asymmetry before and after orthognathic surgery. J Oral Maxillofac Surg 2009;67:67–72. Ueki K, Marukawa K, Hashiba Y, Nakagawa K, Degerliyurt K, Yamamoto E. Assessment of the relationship between the recovery of maximum mandibular opening and the maxillomandibular fixation period after orthognathic surgery. J Oral Maxillofac Surg 2008;66:486–91. Jung HD, Jung YS, Park HS. The chronologic prevalence of temporomandibular joint disorders associated with bilateral intraoral vertical ramus osteotomy. J Oral Maxillofac Surg 2009;67:797–803. Zimmer B, Schwestka R, Kubein-Meesenburg D. Changes in mandibular mobility after different procedures of orthognathic surgery. Eur J Orthod 1992;14:188–97. Kerstens HC, Tuinzing DB, Golding RP, Van der Kwast WA. Condylar atrophy and osteoarthrosis after bimaxillary surgery. Oral Surg Oral Med Oral Pathol 1990;69:274–80. Song HC, Throckmorton GS, Ellis III E, Sinn DP. Functional and morphologic alterations after anterior or inferior repositioning of the maxilla. J Oral Maxillofac Surg 1997;55:41–50. Chen S, Lei J, Wang X, Fu KY, Farzad P, Yi B. Short- and long-term changes of condylar

49.

50.

51.

52.

53.

54.

55.

56.

57.

58.

59.

position after bilateral sagittal split ramus osteotomy for mandibular advancement in combination with Le Fort I osteotomy evaluated by cone-beam computed tomography. J Oral Maxillofac Surg 2013;71:1956–66. Farella M, Michelotti A, Bocchino T, Cimino R, Laino A, Steenks MH. Effects of orthognathic surgery for class III malocclusion on signs and symptoms of temporomandibular disorders and on pressure pain thresholds of the jaw muscles. Int J Oral Maxillofac Surg 2007;36:583–7. Ueki K, Marukawa K, Moroi A, Sotobori M, Ishihara Y, Iguchi R, et al. Changes in border movement of the mandible in skeletal class III before and after orthognathic surgery. Int J Oral Maxillofac Surg 2014;43:213–6. Harada K, Kikuchi T, Morishima S, Sato M, Ohkura K, Omura K. Changes in bite force and dentoskeletal morphology in prognathic patients after orthognathic surgery. Oral Surg Oral Med Oral Pathol Oral Radiol Endod 2003;95:649–54. Hunt NP, Cunningham SJ. The influence of orthognathic surgery on occlusal force in patients with vertical facial deformities. Int J Oral Maxillofac Surg 1997;26:87–91. Kikuta T, Hara I, Seto T, Yoshioka I, Nakashima T, Yasumitsu C. Evaluation of masticatory function after sagittal split ramus osteotomy for patients with mandibular prognathism. Int J Adult Orthodon Orthognath Surg 1994;9:9–17. Alder ME, Deahl ST, Matteson SR, Van Sickels JE, Tiner BD, Rugh JD. Short-term changes of condylar position after sagittal split osteotomy for mandibular advancement. Oral Surg Oral Med Oral Pathol Oral Radiol Endod 1999;87:159–65. Harris MD, Van Sickels JE, Alder M. Factors influencing condylar position after the bilateral sagittal split osteotomy fixed with bicortical screws. J Oral Maxillofac Surg 1999;57:650–5. Kawamata A, Fujishita M, Nagahara K, Kanematu N, Niwa K, Langlais RP. Threedimensional computed tomography evaluation of postsurgical condylar displacement after mandibular osteotomy. Oral Surg Oral Med Oral Pathol Oral Radiol Endod 1998;85:371–6. Kim YJ, Oh KM, Hong JS, Lee JH, Kim HM, Reyes M, et al. Do patients treated with bimaxillary surgery have more stable condylar positions than those who have undergone single-jaw surgery? J Oral Maxillofac Surg 2012;70:2143–52. Ueki K, Okabe K, Mukozawa A, Miyazaki M, Marukawa K, Hashiba Y, et al. Assessment of ramus, condyle, masseter muscle, and occlusal force before and after sagittal split ramus osteotomy in patients with mandibular prognathism. Oral Surg Oral Med Oral Pathol Oral Radiol Endod 2009;108:679–86. de Paula LK, Ruellas AC, Paniagua B, Styner M, Turvey T, Zhu H, et al. One-year

60.

61.

62.

63.

64.

65.

66.

67.

68.

69.

70.

assessment of surgical outcomes in class III patients using cone beam computed tomography. Int J Oral Maxillofac Surg 2013;42:780–9. Park SB, Yang YM, Kim YI, Cho BH, Jung YH, Hwang DS. Effect of bimaxillary surgery on adaptive condylar head remodeling: metric analysis and image interpretation using cone-beam computed tomography volume superimposition. J Oral Maxillofac Surg 2012;70:1951–9. Kim YJ, Lee Y, Chun YS, Kang N, Kim SJ, Kim M. Condylar positional changes up to 12 months after bimaxillary surgery for skeletal class III malocclusions. J Oral Maxillofac Surg 2014;72:145–56. Lee W, Park JU. Three-dimensional evaluation of positional change of the condyle after mandibular setback by means of bilateral sagittal split ramus osteotomy. Oral Surg Oral Med Oral Pathol Oral Radiol Endod 2002;94:305–9. Kim YI, Cho BH, Jung YH, Son WS, Park SB. Cone-beam computerized tomography evaluation of condylar changes and stability following two-jaw surgery: Le Fort I osteotomy and mandibular setback surgery with rigid fixation. Oral Surg Oral Med Oral Pathol Oral Radiol Endod 2011;111:681–7. Kim YI, Jung YH, Cho BH, Kim JR, Kim SS, Son WS, et al. The assessment of the short- and long-term changes in the condylar position following sagittal split ramus osteotomy (SSRO) with rigid fixation. J Oral Rehabil 2010;37:262–70. Ha MH, Kim YI, Park SB, Kim SS, Son WS. Cone-beam computed tomographic evaluation of the condylar remodeling occurring after mandibular set-back by bilateral sagittal split ramus osteotomy and rigid fixation. Korean J Orthod 2013;43:263–70. Ueki K, Degerliyurt K, Hashiba Y, Marukawa K, Nakagawa K, Yamamoto E. Horizontal changes in the condylar head after sagittal split ramus osteotomy with bent plate fixation. Oral Surg Oral Med Oral Pathol Oral Radiol Endod 2008;106:656– 61. Katsumata A, Nojiri M, Fujishita M, Ariji Y, Ariji E, Langlais RP. Condylar head remodeling following mandibular setback osteotomy for prognathism: a comparative study of different imaging modalities. Oral Surg Oral Med Oral Pathol Oral Radiol Endod 2006;101:505–14. Kim YK, Yun PY, Ahn JY, Kim JW, Kim SG. Changes in the temporomandibular joint disc position after orthognathic surgery. Oral Surg Oral Med Oral Pathol Oral Radiol Endod 2009;108:15–21. Lee JA, Yun KI, Kim CH, Park JU. Articular disc position in association with mandibular setback surgery. Oral Surg Oral Med Oral Pathol Oral Radiol Endod 2008;105: e19–21. Nishimura M, Segami N, Sato J, Honjou M, Fujimura K. Transitional joint effusion in the

Effect of orthognathic surgery on TMJ function

71.

72.

73.

74.

75.

mandibular prognathic surgery patient: intraoral vertical ramus osteotomy versus sagittal split ramus osteotomy. J Oral Maxillofac Surg 2004;62:545–8. Ueki K, Marukawa K, Shimada M, Yoshida K, Hashiba Y, Shimizu C, et al. Condylar and disc positions after intraoral vertical ramus osteotomy with and without a Le Fort I osteotomy. Int J Oral Maxillofac Surg 2007;36:207–13. Ueki K, Marukawa K, Shimada M, Hashiba Y, Nakgawa K, Yamamoto E. Condylar and disc positions after sagittal split ramus osteotomy with and without Le Fort I osteotomy. Oral Surg Oral Med Oral Pathol Oral Radiol Endod 2007;103:342–8. Cutbirth M, Van Sickels JE, Thrash WJ. Condylar resorption after bicortical screw fixation of mandibular advancement. J Oral Maxillofac Surg 1998;56:178–83. Borstlap WA, Stoelinga PJ, Hoppenreijs TJ, van’t Hof MA. Stabilisation of sagittal split advancement osteotomies with miniplates: a prospective, multicentre study with two-year follow-up. Part III—condylar remodelling and resorption. Int J Oral Maxillofac Surg 2004;33:649–55. Borstlap WA, Stoelinga PJ, Hoppenreijs TJ, van’t Hof MA. Stabilisation of sagittal split advancement osteotomies with miniplates: a prospective multicentre study with two-year

76.

77.

78.

79.

80.

81.

follow-up. Part II. Radiographic parameters. Int J Oral Maxillofac Surg 2004;33:535–42. Athanasiou AE, Mavreas D. Tomographic assessment of alterations of the temporomandibular joint after surgical correction of mandibular prognathism. Int J Adult Orthodon Orthognath Surg 1991;6:105–12. Cortez AL, Passeri LA. Radiographic assessment of the condylar position after Le Fort I osteotomy in patients with asymptomatic temporomandibular joints: a prospective study. J Oral Maxillofac Surg 2007;65:237–41. Cottrell DA, Suguimoto RM, Wolford LM, Sachdeva R, Guo IY. Condylar change after upward and forward rotation of the maxillomandibular complex. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop 1997;111:156–62. Stroster TG, Pangrazio-Kulbersh V. Assessment of condylar position following bilateral sagittal split ramus osteotomy with wire fixation or rigid fixation. Int J Adult Orthodon Orthognath Surg 1994;9:55–63. Lai W, Yamada K, Hanada K, Iyad AM, Ritsuo T, Tadaharu K, et al. Postoperative mandibular stability after orthognathic surgery in patients with mandibular protrusion and mandibular deviation. Int J Adult Orthodon Orthognath Surg 2002;17:13–22. Rebellato J, Lindauer SJ, Sheats RD, Isaacson RJ. Condylar positional changes after mandibular advancement surgery with rigid

563

internal fixation. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop 1999;116:93–100. 82. Boutros S, Shetye P, Carter C, Grayson B, McCarthy J. Intraoperative fluoroscopic verification of condylar position in orthognathic surgery. Plast Reconstr Surg 2008;121: 1781–4. 83. Rustemeyer J, Gregersen J. Quality of Life in orthognathic surgery patients: post-surgical improvements in aesthetics and self-confidence. J Craniomaxillofac Surg 2012;40: 400–4. 84. Nemeth DZ, Rodrigues-Garcia RC, Sakai S, Hatch JP, Sickels van JE, Bays R, et al. Bilateral sagittal split osteotomy and temporomandibular disorders: rigid fixation versus wire fixation. Oral Surg Oral Med Oral Pathol Oral Radiol Endod 2000;89:29–34.

Address: Emma Caroline te Veldhuis Department of Oral and Maxillofacial Surgery Room D-240 PO Box 2040 3000 CA Rotterdam The Netherlands Tel: +31 10 7034462; Fax: +31 10 7033098 E-mail: [email protected]