ArticleJournal of oral and maxillofacial surgery : official journal of the American Association of Oral and Maxillofacial Surgeons2025
Evaluation of Lingual Fracture Pattern Following Sagittal Split With the Low and Short Medial Osteotomy.
Article in Journal of oral and maxillofacial surgery : official journal of the American Association of Oral and Maxillofacial Surgeons, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundThe lingual split scale (LSS) following sagittal ramus osteotomy (SRO) is an objective scale where LSS1 to 3 are variations of a favorable split, while LSS4 is an unfavorable split. LSS influences postoperative bone overlap, posterior interferences, and fixation methods. There is currently no study evaluating LSS following SRO using the low and short medial osteotomy modification. PURPOSE: The purpose of this study is to describe the lingual fracture pattern of the distal segment through the LSS following SRO using the low and short medial osteotomy modification. STUDY DESIGN, SETTING, AND SAMPLE: A retrospective cohort study of subjects undergoing SRO with the low and short medial osteotomy by a single surgeon at The University of Alabama at Birmingham between February 2020 and July 2024. Subjects with incomplete records were excluded. PREDICTOR VARIABLES: Anatomic predictor variables were ramus width and length and the vertical height of the lingula. Procedural predictor variables were height and angle of the medial osteotomy, medial osteotomy relative to the lingula and to the mandibular canal, and third molar removal at the time of SRO. MAIN OUTCOME VARIABLE: The primary outcome variable was the LSS. LSS1 to 3 are variations of a favorable SRO split, while LSS4 is unfavorable. COVARIATES: Covariates include age, sex, and previous mandibular osteotomies. ANALYSES: The significance level was defined as P < .05. Multivariate regression analyses assessed variables that were near statistically significant (P < .2). Hemimandibles were correlated and the subject factor was accounted for using generalized estimating equations.
resultsThe study sample had 210 subjects (419 hemimandibles). LSS variations of favorable splits resulted in 263 (62.8%) vertical fractures (LSS1), 8 (1.9%) horizontal fractures (LSS2), and 139 (33.2%) fractures along the mandibular canal (LSS3). Nine (2.2%) unfavorable splits (LSS4) were present. No variables were found to be significantly associated with unfavorable fractures (LSS4). CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE: SRO using the low and short medial osteotomy resulted in predictable LSS patterns. Favorable fracture patterns (LSS1 to 3) were present in 97.8% (410) of SROs, while unfavorable fracture patterns (LSS4) were present in 2.2% (9). No variables were identified to be significantly associated with unfavorable fracture (LSS4).
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.