Tooth-borne distraction osteogenesis versus conventional Le Fort I in maxillary advancement of cleft lip and palate patients

被引:5
|
作者
Jamilian, Abdolreza [1 ]
Showkatbakhsh, Rahman [2 ]
Behnaz, Mohammad [2 ]
Ghassemi, Alireza [3 ]
Kamalee, Zinat [4 ]
Perillo, Letizia [5 ]
机构
[1] Islamic Azad Univ, Dept Orthodont, Tehran Dent Branch, Craniomaxillofacial Res Ctr, Tehran, Iran
[2] Shahid Beheshti Univ Med Sci, Res Inst Dent Sci, Dentofacial Deform Res Ctr, Dept Orthodont,Sch Dent, Tehran, Iran
[3] Rhein Westfal TH Aachen, Univ Hosp, Dept Oral Maxillofacial Plast & Reconstruct Surg, Aachen, Germany
[4] Shahid Beheshti Univ Med Sci, Fac Nutr Sci & Food Technol, Natl Nutr & Food Technol Res Inst, Tehran, Iran
[5] Univ Campania Luigi Vanvitelli, Multidisciplinary Dept Med Surg & Dent Specialtie, Unit Orthodont, Naples, Italy
来源
MINERVA STOMATOLOGICA | 2018年 / 67卷 / 03期
关键词
Cleft palate; Osteogenesis; distraction; Osteotomy; Le Fort;
D O I
10.23736/S0026-4970.18.04121-3
中图分类号
R78 [口腔科学];
学科分类号
1003 ;
摘要
BACKGROUND: Distraction osteogenesis (DO) is rapidly becoming a mainstream surgical technique for correction of maxillary deficiency. The aim of this study was to compare the effectiveness of a newly designed tooth-borne osteogenic distraction device with conventional Le Fort 1 osteotomy in maxillary advancement of cleft lip and palate patients. METHODS: The DO group consisted of 10 subjects (7 males, 3 females) with a mean age of 21.2 (SD 4.2) years. In these patients, the newly designed distraction device which exerted force anteroposteriorly was cemented after mobilization of the maxilla. After a latency period of 7 days, the distractor was activated twice daily by a total amount of 0.5 mm per day. The activation was continued for 3 weeks. After an 8-week consolidation period, the distraction appliance was removed. Cephalograms of DO patients were obtained at the start of distraction and at the end of consolidation. The Le Fort 1 group consisted of 11 subjects (6 males, 5 females) with a mean age of 22.3 (SD 3.7) years. Pre and postsurgery lateral cephalograms were obtained. t-test and paired t-test were used to evaluate the data. RESULTS: At the end of treatment, the SNA angle of Le Fort 1 patients increased by 5.5 degrees (SD 2.3) (P<0.001) and the SNA angle of DO patients increased by 3.4 degrees (SD 2) (P<0.001). CONCLUSIONS: Current evidence suggests that both conventional Le Fort 1 and tooth-borne osteogenic distraction device can effectively advance the maxilla forward in patients with cleft lip.
引用
收藏
页码:117 / 124
页数:8
相关论文
共 50 条
  • [1] Le fort I distraction osteogenesis in patients with cleft lip and palate.
    Lippold, C.
    Kelker, M.
    Danesh, G.
    Ehmer, U.
    Kleinheinz, J.
    Joos, U.
    Stamm, T.
    Hohoff, A.
    JOURNAL OF DENTAL RESEARCH, 2003, 82 : B284 - B284
  • [2] Measurement of Distraction Force in Cleft Lip and Palate Patients During Le Fort I Maxillary Advancement With Rigid External Distraction
    Sawada, Hiromi
    Ogawa, Takuya
    Kataoka, Keiichi
    Baba, Yoshiyuki
    Moriyama, Keiji
    JOURNAL OF CRANIOFACIAL SURGERY, 2017, 28 (02) : 406 - 412
  • [3] Correlation Between Speech Outcomes and the Amount of Maxillary Advancement After Orthognathic Surgery (Le Fort I Conventional Osteotomy and Distraction Osteogenesis) in Patients With Cleft Lip and Palate
    Chung, Jeehyeok
    Lim, Joonho
    Park, Hyunyoung
    Yoo, Anna
    Kim, Sukwha
    Koo, Yountaek
    JOURNAL OF CRANIOFACIAL SURGERY, 2019, 30 (06) : 1855 - 1858
  • [4] Maxillary distraction osteogenesis and a Le Fort I osteotomy for severe maxillary retrognathia in cleft lip and palate: a case report
    Fowler, Peter, V
    Steenberg, Leon
    Nguyen, Tung
    AUSTRALASIAN ORTHODONTIC JOURNAL, 2020, 36 (02): : 205 - 210
  • [5] Soft Tissue Changes in Cleft Lip and Palate Patients: Anterior Maxillary Distraction versus Conventional Le-Fort I Osteotomy
    Markose E.
    Paulose J.
    Paul E.T.
    Journal of Maxillofacial and Oral Surgery, 2013, 12 (4) : 429 - 435
  • [6] AN ANALYSIS OF LE-FORT-I MAXILLARY ADVANCEMENT IN CLEFT-LIP AND PALATE PATIENTS
    ESKENAZI, LB
    SCHENDEL, SA
    PLASTIC AND RECONSTRUCTIVE SURGERY, 1992, 90 (05) : 779 - 787
  • [7] Le Fort I Maxillary Advancement Using Distraction Osteogenesis
    Combs, Patrick D.
    Harshbarger, Raymond J., III
    SEMINARS IN PLASTIC SURGERY, 2014, 28 (04) : 193 - 198
  • [8] Maxillary distraction osteogenesis versus orthognathic surgery for cleft lip and palate patients
    Kloukos, Dimitrios
    Fudalej, Piotr
    Sequeira-Byron, Patrick
    Katsaros, Christos
    COCHRANE DATABASE OF SYSTEMATIC REVIEWS, 2018, (08):
  • [9] Maxillary distraction osteogenesis versus orthognathic surgery for cleft lip and palate patients
    Kloukos, Dimitrios
    Fudalej, Piotr
    Sequeira-Byron, Patrick
    Katsaros, Christos
    COCHRANE DATABASE OF SYSTEMATIC REVIEWS, 2016, (09):
  • [10] Skeletal stability after maxillary distraction osteogenesis or conventional Le Fort I osteotomy in patients with cleft lip and palate: A superimposition-based cephalometric analysis
    Lundberg, Joakim
    Al-Taai, Nameer
    Jaghagen, Eva Levring
    Ransjo, Maria
    Sjostrom, Mats
    ORAL AND MAXILLOFACIAL SURGERY-HEIDELBERG, 2024, 28 (02): : 925 - 934