Biomechanical comparison of two ostectomy configurations for partial mandibulectomy

Summary

Objective: To determine the stiffness and load to failure of two different ostectomy configurations using canine mandibles.

Study design: Cadaveric biomechanical assessment.

Animals: Paired mandibles (n = 30).

Methods: Standardized partial ostectomies were created on the alveolar surface of 30 mandibles. Samples were randomly assigned to right-angled (n = 15) or crescentic ostectomy (n = 15). Excision spanned the mesial aspect of the fourth premolar tooth to the distal aspect of first molar tooth. Mandibles were loaded to failure in three-point ben-ding. The stiffness, displacement at maximum load, and load to failure were measured.

Results: There was no significant difference in stiffness (p = 0.59), displacement at maximum load (p = 0.16) and load to failure (p = 0.76) between right-angled or crescentic ostectomy. Right-angled and crescentic ostectomy failed mostly by fracture through an empty alveolus (11/15 and 13/15, respectively).

Clinical relevance: No significant differences in load to failure or stiffness between ostectomy techniques were observed. Crescentic ostectomy did not improve the acute load to failure for partial mandibulectomy. The empty alveolus served as a focal stress concentration point eliminating the potential mechanical advantage of a crescentic ostectomy.

Keywords

Oral surgery - rim mandibulectomy - oral tumour - dog - canine

• References

• 1 Liptak J.. Oral Tumors. In: Withrow SJ., Vail DM.. editors. Small Animal Clinical Oncology Philadelphia, PA: WB Saunders; 2007: 455-475.
• 2 Moulton JE.. Tumors of the alimentary tract. In: Moulton JE.. editor. Tumours in Domestic Animals Berkley, CA: University of California Press; 1997: 240.
• 3 Richardson RC., Jones MA., Elliot GS.. Oral neoplasms in the dog: A diagnostic and therapeutic dilemma. Compend Contin Educ Pract Vet 1983; 5: 441-446.
• 4 Verstraete FJ.. Mandibulectomy and maxillectomy. Vet Clin North Am Small Anim Pract 2005; 35: 1009-1039. viii.
• 5 Matthiesen DT., Manfra Marretta S.. Results and complications associated with partial mandibulectomy and maxillectomy techniques. Probl Vet Med 1990; 2: 248-275.
• 6 Umphlet RC., Johnson AL., Eurell JC.. et al. The effect of partial rostral hemimandibulectomy on mandibular mobility and temporomandibular joint morphology in the dog. Vet Surg 1988; 17: 186-193.
• 7 Salisbury SK.. Maxillectomy and mandibulectomy. In: Slatter D.. editor. Textbook of Small Animal Surgery. 3^rd ed Philadelphia, PA: Elsevier Saunders; 2003: 567-570.
• 8 Crile GW.. Carcinoma of the jaws, tongue, cheek and lips. Surgery, Gynecology & Obstetrics 1923; 36: 159-162.
• 9 Arzi B., Verstraete FJ.. Mandibular rim excision in seven dogs. Vet Surg 2010; 39: 226-231.
• 10 Ertem SY., Uckan S., Ozden UA.. The comparison of angular and curvilinear marginal mandibulectomy on force distribution with three dimensional finite element analysis. J Craniomaxillofac Surg 2013; 41: e54-58.
• 11 Guerra MF., Campo FJ., Gias LN.. et al. Rim versus sagittal mandibulectomy for the treatment of squamous cell carcinoma: two types of mandibular preservation. Head Neck 2003; 25: 982-989.
• 12 Reynolds D., Fransson B., Preston C.. Crescentic osteotomy for resection of oral tumours in four dogs. Vet Comp Orthop Traumatol 2009; 22: 412-416.
• 13 Walker KS., Reiter AM., Lewis JR.. Marginal mandibulectomy in the dog. J Vet Dent 2009; 26: 194-198.
• 14 Barttelbort SW., Bahn SL., Ariyan SA.. Rim mandibulectomy for cancer of the oral cavity. Am J Surg 1987; 154: 423-428.
• 15 Berg J.. Mandibulectomy and maxillectomy. In: Tobias K., Johnston S.. editors. Veterinary Surgery: Small Animal. 1^st ed St. Louis, Mo: Elsevier; 2012: 1448-1460.
• 16 Murray RL., Aitken ML., Gottfried SD.. The use of rim excision as a treatment for canine acanthomatous ameloblastoma. J Am Anim Hosp Assoc 2010; 46: 91-96.
• 17 Gioso MA., Shofer F., Barros PS.. et al. Mandible and mandibular first molar tooth measurements in dogs: relationship of radiographic height to body weight. J Vet Dent 2001; 18: 65-68.
• 18 Snyder CJ., Soukup JW., Drees R.. et al. Caudal mandibular bone height and buccal cortical bone thickness measured by computed tomography in healthy dogs. Vet Surg 2016; 45: 21-29.
• 19 Johnson AL., Houlton JEF., Vannini R.. AO principles of fracture management in the dog and cat. Davos Platz, Switzerland: AO Publishing; 2005: 529.
• 20 Brown JS., Kalavrezos N., D’Souza J.. et al. Factors that influence the method of mandibular resection in the management of oral squamous cell carcinoma. Br J Oral Maxillofac Surg 2002; 40: 275-284.
• 21 Haribhakti VV.. The dentate adult human mandible: an anatomic basis for surgical decision making. Plast Reconstr Surg 1996; 97: 536-541.