Editorial Type:
Biomechanics

Kinematic analysis of mandibular motion before and after mandibulectomy and mandibular reconstruction in dogs

Boaz Arzi 1Department of Surgical and Radiological Sciences, University of California-Davis, Davis, CA 95616.

Search for other papers by Boaz Arzi in
Current site
Google Scholar
PubMed Close
 DVM
,
Frank J. M. Verstraete 1Department of Surgical and Radiological Sciences, University of California-Davis, Davis, CA 95616.

Search for other papers by Frank J. M. Verstraete in
Current site
Google Scholar
PubMed Close
 Dr Med Vet, MMedVet
,
Tanya C. Garcia 2Department of Anatomy, Physiology and Cell Biology, University of California-Davis, Davis, CA 95616.

Search for other papers by Tanya C. Garcia in
Current site
Google Scholar
PubMed Close
 MS
,
Monica Lee 3Department of School of Veterinary Medicine, and the Department of Animal Biology, College of Agricultural and Enviromental Sciences, University of California-Davis, Davis, CA 95616.

Search for other papers by Monica Lee in
Current site
Google Scholar
PubMed Close
 BS
,
Se Eun Kim 4Department of Veterinary Surgery, College of Veterinary Medicine, Chonnam National University, Gwangju 61186, Republic of Korea.

Search for other papers by Se Eun Kim in
Current site
Google Scholar
PubMed Close
 DVM, PhD
, and
Susan M. Stover 2Department of Anatomy, Physiology and Cell Biology, University of California-Davis, Davis, CA 95616.

Search for other papers by Susan M. Stover in
Current site
Google Scholar
PubMed Close
 DVM, PhD
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.2460/ajvr.80.7.637
Volume/Issue:
Volume 80: Issue 7
Online Publication Date:
01 Jul 2019
Restricted access
Sign In Reprints and Permissions Purchase Article

Abstract

OBJECTIVE

To evaluate and quantify the kinematic behavior of canine mandibles before and after bilateral rostral or unilateral segmental mandibulectomy as well as after mandibular reconstruction with a locking reconstruction plate in ex vivo conditions.

SAMPLE

Head specimens from cadavers of 16 dogs (range in body weight, 30 to 35 kg).

PROCEDURE

Specimens were assigned to undergo unilateral segmental (n = 8) or bilateral rostral (8) mandibulectomy and then mandibular reconstruction by internal fixation with locking plates. Kinematic markers were attached to each specimen in a custom-built load frame. Markers were tracked in 3-D space during standardized loading conditions, and mandibular motions were quantified. Differences in mandibular range of motion among 3 experimental conditions (before mandibulectomy [ie, with mandibles intact], after mandibulectomy, and after reconstruction) were assessed by means of repeated-measures ANOVA.

RESULTS

Both unilateral segmental and bilateral rostral mandibulectomy resulted in significantly greater mandibular motion and instability, compared with results for intact mandibles. No significant differences in motion were detected between mandibles reconstructed after unilateral segmental mandibulectomy and intact mandibles. Similarly, the motion of mandibles reconstructed after rostral mandibulectomy was no different from that of intact mandibles, except in the lateral direction.

CONCLUSIONS AND CLINICAL RELEVANCE

Mandibular kinematics in head specimens from canine cadavers were significantly altered after unilateral segmental and bilateral rostral mandibulectomy. These alterations were corrected after mandibular reconstruction with locking reconstruction plates. Findings reinforced the clinical observations of the beneficial effect of reconstruction on mandibular function and the need for reconstructive surgery after mandibulectomy in dogs.

Abstract

OBJECTIVE

To evaluate and quantify the kinematic behavior of canine mandibles before and after bilateral rostral or unilateral segmental mandibulectomy as well as after mandibular reconstruction with a locking reconstruction plate in ex vivo conditions.

SAMPLE

Head specimens from cadavers of 16 dogs (range in body weight, 30 to 35 kg).

PROCEDURE

Specimens were assigned to undergo unilateral segmental (n = 8) or bilateral rostral (8) mandibulectomy and then mandibular reconstruction by internal fixation with locking plates. Kinematic markers were attached to each specimen in a custom-built load frame. Markers were tracked in 3-D space during standardized loading conditions, and mandibular motions were quantified. Differences in mandibular range of motion among 3 experimental conditions (before mandibulectomy [ie, with mandibles intact], after mandibulectomy, and after reconstruction) were assessed by means of repeated-measures ANOVA.

RESULTS

Both unilateral segmental and bilateral rostral mandibulectomy resulted in significantly greater mandibular motion and instability, compared with results for intact mandibles. No significant differences in motion were detected between mandibles reconstructed after unilateral segmental mandibulectomy and intact mandibles. Similarly, the motion of mandibles reconstructed after rostral mandibulectomy was no different from that of intact mandibles, except in the lateral direction.

CONCLUSIONS AND CLINICAL RELEVANCE

Mandibular kinematics in head specimens from canine cadavers were significantly altered after unilateral segmental and bilateral rostral mandibulectomy. These alterations were corrected after mandibular reconstruction with locking reconstruction plates. Findings reinforced the clinical observations of the beneficial effect of reconstruction on mandibular function and the need for reconstructive surgery after mandibulectomy in dogs.

Supplementary Materials

    • Supplementary Figure s1 (PDF 529 kb)
    • Supplementary Figure s2 (PDF 213 kb)
    • Supplementary Figure s3 (PDF 534 kb)
    • Supplementary Figure s4 (PDF 672 kb)
    • Supplementary Table s1 (PDF 257 kb)

Contributor Notes

Address correspondence to Dr. Arzi (barzi@ucdavis.edu).
Cover American Journal of Veterinary Research
American Journal of Veterinary Research
Publication Date:
01 Jul 2019

  • 1. Arzi B, Verstraete FJ. Mandibular rim excision in seven dogs. Vet Surg 2010;39:226–231.

  • 2. Verstraete FJ. Mandibulectomy and maxillectomy. Vet Clin North Am Small Anim Pract 2005;35:1009–1039.

  • 3. Lantz GC. Mandibulectomy techniques. In: Verstraete FJM, Lommer MJ, eds. Oral and maxillofacial surgery in dogs and cats. Edinburgh: Saunders Elsevier, 2012;467–480.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation

  • 4. Riggs J, Adams VJ, Hermer JV, et al. Outcomes following surgical excision or surgical excision combined with adjunctive, hypofractionated radiotherapy in dogs with oral squamous cell carcinoma or fibrosarcoma. J Am Vet Med Assoc 2018;253:73–83.

    • Crossref
    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation

  • 5. Bar-Am Y, Verstraete FJ. Elastic training for the prevention of mandibular drift following mandibulectomy in dogs: 18 cases (2005–2008). Vet Surg 2010;39:574–580.

    • Crossref
    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation

  • 6. Arzi B, Verstraete FJ, Huey DJ, et al. Regenerating mandibular bone using rhBMP-2: part 1—immediate reconstruction of segmental mandibulectomies. Vet Surg 2015;44:403–409.

    • Crossref
    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation

  • 7. Boudrieau RJ. Maxillofacial fracture repair using miniplates and screws. In: Verstraete FJM, Lommer MJ, eds. Oral and maxillofacial surgery in dogs and cats. Edinburgh: Saunders Elsevier, 2012;293–308.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation

  • 8. Boudrieau RJ, Kudisch M. Miniplate fixation for repair of mandibular and maxillary fractures in 15 dogs and 3 cats. Vet Surg 1996;25:277–291.

    • Crossref
    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation

  • 9. 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.

    • Crossref
    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation

  • 10. Arzi B, Cissell DD, Pollard RE, et al. Regenerative approach to bilateral rostral mandibular reconstruction in a case series of dogs. Front Vet Sci 2015;2:4.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation

  • 11. Boudrieau RJ, Mitchell SL, Seeherman H. Mandibular reconstruction of a partial hemimandibulectomy in a dog with severe malocclusion. Vet Surg 2004;33:119–130.

    • Crossref
    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation

  • 12. Boudrieau RJ. Initial experience with rhBMP-2 delivered in a compressive resistant matrix for mandibular reconstruction in 5 dogs. Vet Surg 2015;44:443–458.

    • Crossref
    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation

  • 13. Lewis JR, Boudrieau RJ, Reiter AM, et al. Mandibular reconstruction after gunshot trauma in a dog by use of recombinant human bone morphogenetic protein-2. J Am Vet Med Assoc 2008;233:1598–1604.

    • Crossref
    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation

  • 14. Verstraete FJ, Arzi B, Huey DJ, et al. Regenerating mandibular bone using rhBMP–2: part 2–treatment of chronic, defect non-union fractures. Vet Surg 2015;44:410–416.

    • Crossref
    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation

  • 15. Linsen SS, Reich RH, Teschke M. Mandibular kinematics in patients with alloplastic total temporomandibular joint replacement—a prospective study. J Oral Maxillofac Surg 2012;70:2057–2064.

    • Crossref
    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation

  • 16. Curtis DA, Plesh O, Miller AJ, et al. A comparison of masticatory function in patients with or without reconstruction of the mandible. Head Neck 1997;19:287–296.

    • Crossref
    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation

  • 17. Linsen SS, Oikonomou A, Martini M, et al. Mandibular kinematics and maximum voluntary bite force following segmental resection of the mandible without or with reconstruction. Clin Oral Investig 2018;22:1707–1716.

    • Crossref
    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation

  • 18. Urken ML, Buchbinder D, Weinberg H, et al. Functional evaluation following microvascular oromandibular reconstruction of the oral cancer patient: a comparative study of reconstructed and nonreconstructed patients. Laryngoscope 2015;125:1512.

    • Crossref
    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation

  • 19. van Gemert J, Holtslag I, van der Bilt A, et al. Health-related quality of life after segmental resection of the lateral mandible: free fibula flap versus plate reconstruction. J Craniomaxillofac Surg 2015;43:658–662.

    • Crossref
    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation

  • 20. Linsen S, Schmidt-Beer U, Fimmers R, et al. Craniomandibular pain, bite force, and oral health-related quality of life in patients with jaw resection. J Pain Symptom Manage 2009;37:94–106.

    • Crossref
    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation

  • 21. Yatabe M, Zwijnenburg A, Megens CC, et al. The kinematic center: a reference for condylar movements. J Dent Res 1995;74:1644–1648.

  • 22. Gibbs CH, Messerman T, Reswick JB, et al. Functional movements of the mandible. J Prosthet Dent 1971;26:604–620.

  • 23. Arzi B, Stover SM, Garcia TC, et al. Biomechanical evaluation of two plating configurations for critical-sized defects of the mandible in dogs. Am J Vet Res 2016;77:445–451.

    • Crossref
    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation

  • 24. Evans HE, de Lahunta A. Miller's anatomy of the dog. 4th ed. St Louis: Elsevier, 2013.

  • 25. Lantz GC, Verstraete FJ. Fractures and luxations involving the temporomandibular joint. In: Verstraete FJ, Lommer MJ, eds. Oral and maxillofacial surgery in dogs and cats. Edinburgh: Saunders Elsevier, 2012;321–332.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation

  • 26. Lin AW, Vapniarsky N, Cissell DD, et al. The temporomandibular joint of the domestic dog (Canis lupus familiaris) in health and disease. J Comp Pathol 2018;161:55–67.

    • Crossref
    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation

  • 27. Matthiesen DT, Manfra MS. Results and complications associated with partial mandibulectomy and maxillectomy techniques. Probl Vet Med 1990;2:248–275.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation

  • 28. Salisbury SK. Problems and complications associated with maxillectomy, mandibulectomy, and oronasal fistula repair. Probl Vet Med 1991;3:153–169.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation

  • 29. Herring SW, Rafferty KL, Liu ZJ, et al. Jaw muscles and the skull in mammals: the biomechanics of mastication. Comp Biochem Physiol A Mol Integr Physiol 2001;131:207–219.

    • Crossref
    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation

  • 30. Tanaka E, Detamore MS, Mercuri LG. Degenerative disorders of the temporomandibular joint: etiology, diagnosis, and treatment. J Dent Res 2008;87:296–307.

    • Crossref
    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation

  • 31. Kadota C, Sumita YI, Wang Y, et al. Comparison of food mixing ability among mandibulectomy patients. J Oral Rehabil 2008;35:408–414.

    • Crossref
    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation

  • 32. Namaki S, Matsumoto M, Ohba H, et al. Masticatory efficiency before and after surgery in oral cancer patients: comparative study of glossectomy, marginal mandibulectomy and segmental mandibulectomy. J Oral Sci 2004;46:113–117.

    • Crossref
    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation

  • 33. Kim SE, Arzi B, Garcia TC, et al. Bite forces and their measurement in dogs and cats. Front Vet Sci 2018;5:76.

  • 34. Lindner DL, Marretta SM, Pijanowski GJ, et al. Measurement of bite force in dogs: a pilot study. J Vet Dent 1995;12:49–52.

Advertisement