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

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.

Authors

Institutions

Publication Details

Journal
Oral and Maxillofacial Surgery
Published
2026-07-17
DOI
https://doi.org/10.1007/s10006-026-01596-8
Primary Topic
Orthodontics and Dentofacial Orthopedics
Type
article
Field-Weighted Citation Impact
0.00

Funders

Controls
|||
ALL TIME
JAN
FEB
MAR
APR
MAY
JUN
JUL
AUG
SEP
OCT
article

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

Misha L. Tan, Karel Kuik, Damir Delic, Jan de Lange et al.
Oral and Maxillofacial Surgery
Orthodontics and Dentofacial Orthopedics
article

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

Misha L. Tan, Karel Kuik, Damir Delic, Jan de Lange, Jean-Pierre T. F. Ho, Cornelis J. Kleverlaan, Max P.A. Balkenende
article en

Abstract

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.

Oral and Maxillofacial SurgeryVol. 30(1)
Academic Center for Dentistry Amsterdam (NL), Noordwest Ziekenhuisgroep (NL), Amsterdam University Medical Centers (NL), University of Amsterdam (NL)
Stryker
Openalex Percentile: Top 7%
Orthodontics and Dentofacial Orthopedics
AI Navigator

Ask Laika to Summarize, Analyze, and Connect papers live on the map.

Summarize Papers & Methodologies

Extract key findings, datasets, and comparative methods across publications.

Benchmark Rankings & Visual Analytics

Rank top research institutions, authors, funders, topics, and journals by Field-Weighted Citation Impact (FWCI) and paper volume with instant charts.

Connect Distant Disciplines

Bridge topological clusters on the map to find hidden collaborative intersections.