ClinicalTrials.gg
CompletedNCT06273189Updated Feb 22, 2024

Ultrasonic Bone Scalpel in BSSO

An interventional study of Conventional and Bone Scalpel in Maxillofacial Abnormalities, sponsored by TC Erciyes University. Completed at 1 site in Turkey. Open to participants aged 18 Years to 40 Years, including healthy volunteers. Per ClinicalTrials.gov, last updated 2024-02-22.

Sponsored by TC Erciyes University · Not applicable, Interventional, and Treatment

From the registry’s dates

  • Registered 5 years 1 month after the study started (first participant enrolled Dec 2018, registered Jan 2024).
Phase
Not applicable
Study type
Interventional
Enrollment
40
Allocation
Randomized
Ages
18 Years to 40 Years
Sex
All
01

Study summary

The conventional saw compared with the piezo surgery in BSSO to evaluate cutting time, surgery duration, amount of bleeding. The purpose of this study was to answers following clinical questions: Is ultrasonic bonescalpel effective osteotomy like conventional bur in BSSO? and 2) Does it reduce operative parameter like bleeding, duration, lingual split pattern? 3) Does it reduce postoperative morbidity after BSSO.

Read the detailed description

The purpose of this study was to answers following clinical questions:

  1. Is ultrasonic bonescalpel effective osteotomy like conventional bur in BSSO? 2) Does it reduce operative parameter like bleeding, duration, lingual split pattern? 3) Does it reduce postoperative morbidity after BSSO. Hypotheses of this study that ultrasonic bone scalpel can improve BSSO and its postoperative results due to strong cutting efficiency and soft tissue protective effect.

Surgical procedure; After removing the full thickness mucoperiosteal flap lingula was localized. In ultrasonic device group, osteotomies one side of the mandible were performed unilaterally using an ultrasonic bone scalpel (BoneScalpel; Misonix, Farmingdale, NY) with a serrated standard blade. In conventional group, contralateral side mandibular osteotomies were performed with Lindeman and round bur. Groups are selected randomly.

c- Follow up

The predictor variable was the type of instrument used for bone osteotomy. The instruments were ultrasonic bone scalpel and Lindeman bur. The main outcome variable are the cutting time and NSD. All patients were followed for 6 months.The authors used the 3dMD imaging system (3dMD, Atlanta, GA) and 3dMD Vultus software to evaluate the amount of postoperative edema.

02

Conditions studied

  • Maxillofacial Abnormalities

Keywords

  • Sagittal split osteotomy
  • ultrasonic bone scalpel
  • neurosensory disturbance
03

In context

Maxillofacial Abnormalities

21 studies on the registry are indexed under Maxillofacial Abnormalities; 2 are open to participants now.

This study's enrollment of 40 is below the median of 49 across 10 interventional studies indexed under Maxillofacial Abnormalities.

Browse Maxillofacial Abnormalities studies →

Lead sponsor

TC Erciyes University is the lead sponsor of 349 studies on the registry; 74 are open to participants now.

Counted across the registry records on this site, refreshed daily.

04

Who can participate

Ages eligible
18 Years to 40 Years
Sexes eligible
All
Accepts healthy volunteers
Yes

Go through the criteria one by one — yes, no or not sure — and take the list to your doctor or the study team. Kept in this browser only.

Inclusion criteria

  • Patients are included with older than 18 years old,
  • normal level, in the average range,
  • status of ASA I and II.

Exclusion criteria

Exclusion Criteria:

  • The exclusion criteria are neuropathic disease,
  • recent use of nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs and opioid derivatives,
  • having preoperative signs of inflammation in the maxillofacial region,
  • presence of excessive bleeding in the previous surgery,
  • and allergy to drugs. All patients have given written .
Terms in these criteria, in plain language(4)

Underlined terms in the criteria open these too. Explained by clinicaltrials.gg, not part of the registry record. The study team decides who can take part.

Hemoglobin (Hb)

The protein in red blood cells that carries oxygen. A low level is anaemia, which can cause tiredness and breathlessness. Measured in g/dL or g/L (9 g/dL is 90 g/L).

INR, PT and aPTT (clotting tests)

Blood tests of how long blood takes to clot. The INR is the prothrombin time (PT) put on a common scale; about 1 is usual for someone not taking a blood thinner.

Criteria often make an exception for people on a blood thinner such as warfarin, whose INR is raised on purpose.

ASA physical status

The anaesthetists’ scale of health before surgery: I is healthy, II has a mild illness that is under control, III a severe one, IV a severe illness that is a constant threat to life. V and VI are used for the critically ill and for organ donors.

Informed consent

Before you join, the study team explains what taking part involves — its purpose, what happens, the risks and possible benefits — and answers your questions, so you can decide freely. Consent is usually recorded on a form (the informed consent form, ICF) signed by you or, where the law allows, by someone legally authorised to decide for you.

You can keep asking questions during the study, you are told of new information that matters, and you can choose to leave at any time.

05

Study design

Phase
Not applicable
Primary purpose
Treatment
Allocation
Randomized
Intervention model
Parallel assignment
Masking
Double (Participant, Outcomes assessor)
Enrollment
40 participants (actual)

Study arms

  • Experimental
    Lindeman

    BSSO were performed with Lindeman and round bur

    Device: Conventional

  • Active comparator
    Bone scalpel

    BSSO were performed unilaterally using an ultrasonic bone scalpel

    Device: Bone Scalpel

Interventions

  • DeviceConventional

    In conventional group, contralateral side mandibular osteotomies were performed with Lindeman and round bur (Karl Storz, Tuttlingen, Germany)

    Also known as: Group I

  • DeviceBone Scalpel

    In ultrasonic device group, osteotomies one side of the mandible were performed unilaterally using an ultrasonic bone scalpel (BoneScalpel; Misonix, Farmingdale, NY) with a serrated standard blade

    Also known as: Group II

06

What researchers measure

Primary outcomes

  1. Cutting Time

    Length of cutting time was considered the time from the beginning the sagittal osteotomy to the end of making the vertical osteotomy line. The right and left side recorded separately.

    Time frame: during procedure

  2. neurosensory disturbance

    Neuro sensory disturbance between the mental foramen and lower lip region on each side was evaluated subjectively after the operation day to a week. The examiner was blinded, and do not know which side of the mandible was randomly allocated to the experimental treatment.that was recorded by visual analog scale( VAS)

    Time frame: up to six months

Secondary outcomes

  1. The length of the procedure

    this is recorded from mucogingival incision to the sagittal splitting in minutes by an unbiased researcher. The reason for determining this period is that the amount of mandibular movement and the degree of fixation difficulty vary, especially in facial asymmetric patients.

    Time frame: during procedure

  2. The splitting time

    this is recorded for the right and left sides to determine the difficulty of splitting, respectively. If the time required to complete the splitting was less than 100 seconds, it was determined as 'easy,' between 100-200 seconds as 'medium'; if more than 200 seconds, it was determined as 'difficult.'

    Time frame: during procedure

  3. The pattern of the split

    this is evaluated by cone-beam computed tomography that is classified into four types according to lingual split scale of Plooij et al

    Time frame: during procedure

  4. postoperative edema

    The authors used the 3dMD imaging system (3dMD, Atlanta, GA) and 3dMD Vultus software to evaluate the amount of postoperative edema. Three-dimensional images were taken at maximum intercuspation when the lips were free and the eyes were open. The images were taken at 3 days, and at 6 months after surgery.

    Time frame: up to six months

07

Study locations

1 site
  • Selin Çelebi
    Kayseri, Melikgazi 38039, Turkey
08

References and documents

Publications

  • Kim SG, Park SS. Incidence of complications and problems related to orthognathic surgery. J Oral Maxillofac Surg. 2007 Dec;65(12):2438-44. doi: 10.1016/j.joms.2007.05.030. PubMed 18022466 ↗
  • Yoshioka I, Tanaka T, Khanal A, Habu M, Kito S, Kodama M, Oda M, Wakasugi-Sato N, Matsumoto-Takeda S, Fukai Y, Tokitsu T, Tomikawa M, Seta Y, Tominaga K, Morimoto Y. Relationship between inferior alveolar nerve canal position at mandibular second molar in patients with prognathism and possible occurrence of neurosensory disturbance after sagittal split ramus osteotomy. J Oral Maxillofac Surg. 2010 Dec;68(12):3022-7. doi: 10.1016/j.joms.2009.09.046. Epub 2010 Aug 24. PubMed 20739116 ↗
  • Yamamoto R, Nakamura A, Ohno K, Michi KI. Relationship of the mandibular canal to the lateral cortex of the mandibular ramus as a factor in the development of neurosensory disturbance after bilateral sagittal split osteotomy. J Oral Maxillofac Surg. 2002 May;60(5):490-5. doi: 10.1053/joms.2002.31843. PubMed 11988921 ↗
  • Bruckmoser E, Bulla M, Alacamlioglu Y, Steiner I, Watzke IM. Factors influencing neurosensory disturbance after bilateral sagittal split osteotomy: retrospective analysis after 6 and 12 months. Oral Surg Oral Med Oral Pathol Oral Radiol. 2013 Apr;115(4):473-82. doi: 10.1016/j.oooo.2012.08.454. Epub 2012 Nov 20. PubMed 23182371 ↗
  • Lanigan DT, Hey J, West RA. Hemorrhage following mandibular osteotomies: a report of 21 cases. J Oral Maxillofac Surg. 1991 Jul;49(7):713-24. doi: 10.1016/s0278-2391(10)80235-6. PubMed 2056370 ↗
  • Kohnke R, Kolk A, Kluwe L, Ploder O. Piezosurgery for Sagittal Split Osteotomy: Procedure Duration and Postoperative Sensory Perturbation. J Oral Maxillofac Surg. 2017 Sep;75(9):1941-1947. doi: 10.1016/j.joms.2017.05.003. Epub 2017 May 15. PubMed 28595839 ↗
  • Spinelli G, Lazzeri D, Conti M, Agostini T, Mannelli G. Comparison of piezosurgery and traditional saw in bimaxillary orthognathic surgery. J Craniomaxillofac Surg. 2014 Oct;42(7):1211-20. doi: 10.1016/j.jcms.2014.02.011. Epub 2014 Mar 20. PubMed 24742747 ↗
  • Vercellotti T. Technological characteristics and clinical indications of piezoelectric bone surgery. Minerva Stomatol. 2004 May;53(5):207-14. English, Italian. PubMed 15263877 ↗
  • Landes CA, Stubinger S, Ballon A, Sader R. Piezoosteotomy in orthognathic surgery versus conventional saw and chisel osteotomy. Oral Maxillofac Surg. 2008 Sep;12(3):139-47. doi: 10.1007/s10006-008-0123-7. PubMed 18629552 ↗
  • Beziat JL, Faghahati S, Ferreira S, Babic B, Gleizal A. [Intermaxillary fixation: technique and benefit for piezosurgical sagittal split osteotomy]. Rev Stomatol Chir Maxillofac. 2009 Nov;110(5):273-7. doi: 10.1016/j.stomax.2009.09.003. Epub 2009 Oct 20. French. PubMed 19846184 ↗
  • MCFALL TA, YAMANE GM, BURNETT GW. Comparison of the cutting effect on bone of an ultrasonic cutting device and rotary burs. J Oral Surg Anesth Hosp Dent Serv. 1961 May;19:200-9. No abstract available. PubMed 13773910 ↗
  • Sun C, Chen G, Fan T, Li W, Guo Z, Qi Q, Zeng Y, Zhong W, Chen Z. Ultrasonic bone scalpel for thoracic spinal decompression: case series and technical note. J Orthop Surg Res. 2020 Aug 8;15(1):309. doi: 10.1186/s13018-020-01838-9. PubMed 32771031 ↗
  • Al-Mahfoudh R, Qattan E, Ellenbogen JR, Wilby M, Barrett C, Pigott T. Applications of the ultrasonic bone cutter in spinal surgery--our preliminary experience. Br J Neurosurg. 2014 Jan;28(1):56-60. doi: 10.3109/02688697.2013.812182. Epub 2013 Jul 10. PubMed 23841662 ↗
  • Dammous S, Dupont Q, Gilles R. Three-dimensional computed tomographic evaluation of bilateral sagittal split osteotomy lingual fracture line and le fort I pterygomaxillary separation in orthognathic surgery using cadaver heads: ultrasonic osteotome versus conventional saw. J Oral Maxillofac Surg. 2015 Jun;73(6):1169-80. doi: 10.1016/j.joms.2014.12.017. Epub 2014 Dec 23. PubMed 25795191 ↗
  • Demirbas AE, Bilge S, Celebi S, Kutuk N, Alkan A. Is Ultrasonic Bone Scalpel Useful in Le Fort I Osteotomy? J Oral Maxillofac Surg. 2020 Jan;78(1):141.e1-141.e10. doi: 10.1016/j.joms.2019.09.021. Epub 2019 Sep 27. PubMed 31669455 ↗
  • Plooij JM, Naphausen MT, Maal TJ, Xi T, Rangel FA, Swennnen G, de Koning M, Borstlap WA, Berge SJ. 3D evaluation of the lingual fracture line after a bilateral sagittal split osteotomy of the mandible. Int J Oral Maxillofac Surg. 2009 Dec;38(12):1244-9. doi: 10.1016/j.ijom.2009.07.013. Epub 2009 Aug 26. PubMed 19713076 ↗
  • Hunsuck EE. A modified intraoral sagittal splitting technic for correction of mandibular prognathism. J Oral Surg. 1968 Apr;26(4):250-3. No abstract available. PubMed 5237786 ↗
  • Gleizal A, Bera JC, Lavandier B, Beziat JL. Piezoelectric osteotomy: a new technique for bone surgery-advantages in craniofacial surgery. Childs Nerv Syst. 2007 May;23(5):509-13. doi: 10.1007/s00381-006-0250-0. Epub 2007 Mar 14. PubMed 17356890 ↗
  • Kramer FJ, Ludwig HC, Materna T, Gruber R, Merten HA, Schliephake H. Piezoelectric osteotomies in craniofacial procedures: a series of 15 pediatric patients. Technical note. J Neurosurg. 2006 Jan;104(1 Suppl):68-71. doi: 10.3171/ped.2006.104.1.68. PubMed 16509486 ↗
  • Spinelli G, Mannelli G, Zhang YX, Lazzeri D, Spacca B, Genitori L, Raffaini M, Agostini T. Complex craniofacial advancement in paediatric patients: Piezoelectric and traditional technique evaluation. J Craniomaxillofac Surg. 2015 Oct;43(8):1422-7. doi: 10.1016/j.jcms.2015.07.012. Epub 2015 Aug 1. PubMed 26302936 ↗
  • Rana M, Gellrich NC, Rana M, Piffko J, Kater W. Evaluation of surgically assisted rapid maxillary expansion with piezosurgery versus oscillating saw and chisel osteotomy - a randomized prospective trial. Trials. 2013 Feb 17;14:49. doi: 10.1186/1745-6215-14-49. PubMed 23414112 ↗
  • Pagotto LEC, de Santana Santos T, de Vasconcellos SJA, Santos JS, Martins-Filho PRS. Piezoelectric versus conventional techniques for orthognathic surgery: Systematic review and meta-analysis. J Craniomaxillofac Surg. 2017 Oct;45(10):1607-1613. doi: 10.1016/j.jcms.2017.06.011. Epub 2017 Jul 1. PubMed 28843403 ↗
  • Schlee M, Steigmann M, Bratu E, Garg AK. Piezosurgery: basics and possibilities. Implant Dent. 2006 Dec;15(4):334-40. doi: 10.1097/01.id.0000247859.86693.ef. PubMed 17172949 ↗
09

Timeline

Tracking since Sep 25, 2026
ElapsedEstimatedEstimated, not yet reached

Ran from Dec 2018 to primary completion in Dec 2020, 24 months.

How these figures are worked out, and which studies are left out of them.

Registered
Jan 18, 2024
First posted
Feb 22, 2024
StartActual
Dec 15, 2018
Primary completionActual
Dec 15, 2020
CompletionActual
Dec 15, 2021
Last update
Feb 22, 2024
What these dates mean
Start.
When the first participant enrolled; while estimated, when the study expects to open to recruitment.
Primary completion.
When the last participant was examined or treated to collect data for the study's main question, its primary outcome. A study that stopped early gives the date its data collection stopped.
Completion.
When the last participant's last visit took place, for every outcome, secondary ones and side effects included: the end of the study. Often later than primary completion, sometimes the same day.
Actual and Est.
Actual means the registry says the date has happened. Est. (estimated) is a date the sponsor plans or expects. It can still move, and the sponsor is expected to change it to actual once it has passed.
No changes since tracking began. The registry record was last updated on Feb 22, 2024, before this site started recording changes on Sep 25, 2026. Its history is on ClinicalTrials.gov ↗
10

Registry details

Key details

Study ID
NCT06273189
Responsible party
Selin Celebi (Resident, TC Erciyes University) — Principal investigator
First posted
Feb 22, 2024
Start date
Dec 15, 2018
Primary completion
Dec 15, 2020
Completion
Dec 15, 2021
Last update
Feb 22, 2024

Study contacts

Ahmet Emin Demirbaş, PhD,DDS
study director · Erciyes U
Yusuf Nuri Kaba, PhD,DDS
principal investigator · Erciyes U
Suheyb Bilge, PhD,DDS
principal investigator · Erciyes U
Selin Çelebi, PhD,DDS
principal investigator · Erciyes U

Oversight

Data monitoring committee
No
FDA-regulated drug
No
FDA-regulated device
No
View the source record on ClinicalTrials.gov ↗

Not currently enrolling

This study is completed, as verified in Feb 2024. You cannot join it, but the record below documents what was studied.

Follow this study

Get an email when the registry record changes — status, dates, results — or when someone posts here.

Sign in to follow

Discussion

Questions and observations about this study, from anyone following it. Not medical advice, and not a channel to the study team — their contact details are on the registry record.

Sign in to join the discussion. Reading takes no account; posting does. You choose a display name, and a pseudonym is the default.

Nothing here yet. If you are running this trial, taking part in it, or weighing whether to, this is the place to say so.

Start the discussion