Differences in motoric function of masticatory and facial muscles post segmental mandibulectomy and hemimandibulectomy

Ariyanto Suryo Karyono; Andri Hardianto; Lucky Riawan

doi:10.24198/pjd.vol34no2.31612

Differences in motoric function of masticatory and facial muscles post segmental mandibulectomy and hemimandibulectomy

Ariyanto Suryo Karyono, Andri Hardianto, Lucky Riawan

Abstract

ABSTRACT

Introduction: The highest predilection for jaw tumors is located in the mandible. One of the management of tumors in the mandible is resection. The resection will result in a discontinuity in the jaw and disruption of the stomatognathic system, one of which is a decrease in the motoric function of the masticatory muscles. Electroneuromyography (ENMG) is a type of examination that includes an electroneurography (ENG) examination, which includes a Neural Conduction Study (NCS) based on stimulation value (STIM) and velocity (VEL), and electromyography (EMG) which can be used to assess motoric function impairment of masticatory and facial muscles in patients undergoing mandibular resection. This study analyzed the differences in the motoric function of masticatory and facial muscles post-segmental mandibulectomy and hemimandibulectomy. Methods: This preliminary analytical cross-sectional study compares ten post-segmental mandibulectomy or hemimandibulectomy patients who had undergone mandibular reconstruction in the Oral Surgery Department of Hasan Sadikin Hospital Bandung. Assessment was performed using an AO plate (Arbeitsgemeinschaft für Osteosynthesisfragen) towards the patients. The results were compared using Chi-Square and Mann-Whitney statistical analysis. Results: A decrease in masticatory muscle function was detected using ENMG. NCS and EMG assessments were obtained. There was no significant difference in NCS values (p>0.05) in patients with segmental mandibulectomy (mean STIM 4.2 ± 1.7, VEL 13.23 ± 5.38) and hemimandibulectomy (mean STIM 4.3 ± 1.35, VEL 12.56 ± 4.83), however, a significant difference was found in the EMG values (p=0.025; p<0.05) of the patients with segmental mandibulectomy (mean 70% of patients were normal) and hemimandibulectomy (mean 20% of patients were normal). Conclusion: There are differences in the decreased motoric function of masticatory and facial muscles post-segmental mandibulectomy and hemimandibulectomy.

Keywords: motoric function; masticatory muscles; facial muscles; mandibular resection

Keywords

motoric function; masticatory muscles; facial muscles; mandibular resection

Full Text:

PDF

References

REFRENCES

Varkhede A, Tupkari J V, Sardar M. Odontogenic tumors : A study of 120 cases in an Indian teaching hospital. 2011;16(7):895–9.

Wright JM, Soluk-Tekkeşin M. Odontogenic Tumors: Where Are We In 2017? J Istanbul Univ Fac Dent [Internet]. 2017;51(3):10–30. Available from: http://dx.doi.org/10.17096/jiufd.52886

Ram H, Sarkar J, Kumar H, Konwar R, Bhatt MLB, Mohammad S. Oral Cancer: Risk Factors and Molecular Pathogenesis. J Maxillofac Oral Surg [Internet]. 2011;10(2):132–7. Available from: http://link.springer.com/10.1007/s12663-011-0195-z

Nthumba P VT. Jaw Tumors. Christian Medical And Dental Association; 2013.

Nath S, Devi GR. Three-dimensional culture systems in cancer research: Focus on tumor spheroid model. Pharmacol Ther. 2016;163:94–108.

Brown JS, Conor B, Michael H, Richard S. A new classification for mandibular defects after oncological resection, The Lancet Oncology. Vol. 17. Elsevier Ltd; 2016. e23 – e30p.

Eriza, Adham M, Musa Z, Parintosa, Krista. Hemimandibulektomi Dan Rekonstruksi Mandibula Dengan Free Vascularized Fibular Graft. Departemen Penyakit Telinga Hidung Tenggorokan, Fakultas Kedokteran UI; 2011.

Brown JS, Conor B, Michael H, Richard S. A New Classification for Mandibular Defects after Oncological Resection, The Lancet Oncology. Elsevier Ltd, editor. Vol. 17. 2016. 23–30 p.

Kirita T, Omura K. Oral Cancer Diagnosis and Therapy. Tokyo: Springer International Publishing; 2015. 186–189 p.

Neagu D, Escuder-de la Torre O, Vázquez-Mahía I, Carral-Roura N, Rubín-Roger G, Penedo-Vázquez ángel, et al. Surgical management of ameloblastoma. Review of literature. J Clin Exp Dent. 2019;11(1):e70–5

Chichkova RI, Katzin L. EMG and Nerve Conduction Studies in Clinical Practice. Pract Neurol. 2010;(Jan-Feb):32–8

Guyton AC, Hall JE. Medical physiology. elevnth ed. Elsevier Inc; 2011. 829–87 p.

Schuster M, Stelzle F. Outcome measurements after oral cancer treatment: Speech and speech-related aspects-an overview. Oral Maxillofac Surg. 2012;16(3):291–8.

Tortora GJ, Wiley J, Roesch B, Wojcik L, Salisbury B, Gerdes K, et al. PRINCIPLES OF ANATOMY AND Br yan Derrickson. 2010

Sari DT, Widasmara D, Nandar S. INTERPRETATION OF NERVE CONDUCTION STUDY IN POLYNEUROPATHY WITH MULTIBACILLARY LEPROSY TYPE 2 REACTION. 2018;(July)

Abernethy B. The Biophysical Foundations of Human Movement. 2nd ed. Australia: Palgrave Macmillan; 2005

Rogers SN, Devine J, Shokar P, Brown J., Vaughan D. Longitudinal health- related quality of life after mandibular resection for oral cancer: A comparison between rim and segment. Head Neck. 2004;26(1):54–62.

Vijayaraghavan NV, Ramesh G, Thareja A, Patil S. Masticatory efficiency after rehabilitation of acquired maxillary and mandibular defects. 2015;6(3)

Mills KR. The basics of electromyography. Neurol Pract. 2005;76(2):32–5

DOI: https://doi.org/10.24198/pjd.vol34no2.31612