Related Experiment Video
Updated: Jun 29, 2025

Minimally Invasive Treatment for Thoracolumbar Burst Fracture Using Sagittal Alignment Screws and A Trauma Reduction Device
Published on: November 8, 2024
Which factors affect the lingual fracture pattern in sagittal split ramus osteotomy?
Yusuf Nuri Kaba1, Ahmet Emin Demirbas1, Gamze Şirin Sarıbal2
1Department of Oral and Maxillofacial Surgery, Erciyes University Faculty of Dentistry, Melikgazi, Kayseri, Turkey.
Abstract:
The purpose of this study was to elucidate the effects of mandibular anatomy and osteotomy technique on lingual fracture patterns in SSRO. The predictor variables were: length of horizontal medial osteotomy; type of border osteotomy; buccolingual width; and vertical length of the basal cortex. The outcome variable was the type of lingual split pattern. This was categorized into four types according to a lingual split scale (LSS): LSS 1, true Hunsuck; LSS 2, fracture line to posterior border of the ramus; LSS 3, through to mandibular canal; LSS 4, unfavorable fracture pattern. Data were analyzed using analysis of variance and the Pearson χ2 test. Values of p < 0.05 were considered statistically significant. The study sample comprised 312 lingual split patterns in 156 patients. The most common type of lingual split pattern was LSS 1 (n = 204). There was a significant relationship between inferior border osteotomy type and LSS type (p = 0.001). Whilst LSS 1 was the most common among all border osteotomy types. LSS 4 was most frequently observed in cases where the lower border osteotomy remained in the buccal surface. According to the results of this study, the likelihood of an unfavorable split pattern increases when the lower border osteotomy remains in the buccal surface.

