الفهرس 
IntroductionOnly 14 pages are availabe for public view
 |  | from | 101 |  |  |
| | | from | 101 | | |
Abstract
The aim of the current study was to compare between the outcomes of both Piezoelectric Surgical device and surgical saw in maxillary orthognathic regarding the following points:-
1. Bone density of each side radiographically.
2. Cut quality regarding marginal coagulative bone necrosis histopathologicaly.
3. Intraoperative bleeding.
4. Postoperative edema.
5. Postoperative pain.
6. Osteotomy time.
The current study was conducted on 10 patients with maxillary discrepancy indicated for orthognathic surgery. Lefort I was performed for all of them while osteotomy was performed by piezoelectric to one maxillary side and the other side was osteotomised with surgical saw. This split mouth technique enabled us to detect accurately the relative difference between both devices.
We assessed the intraoperative blood loss which revealed less invasiveness of piezo than saw with statistical significant decrease in blood loss in piezo side than saw. While the osteotomy time was higher with piezo than saw with statistical significant time, saving prevelage in saw rather than piezo. In histomorphometric study of bone samples from both sides the marginal bone necrosis was minimal with piezo which enhanced healing in piezo side than saw side which was improved radiographicaly 3 months postoperative by the significant high bone density in piezo side than saw.
Regarding postoperative pain, it was significantly high in saw side than piezo in the 1st day postoperative but there was no significant difference in pain in the late postoperative periods. In addition, postoperative edema revealed no significant difference between saw and piezo.
The current study concluded that piezo is a valuable less invasive osteotomy tool which may take the place of surgical saw as a standard osteotomy tool in orthognathic surgery.