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
  • [31] Efficacy of the maxillary anterior segmental distraction osteogenesis in patients with cleft lip and palate
    Panjun Pu
    Shanying Bao
    Jianbo Gao
    Yuhua Jiao
    Feiyu Wang
    Huaxiang Zhao
    Yuxia Hou
    Yalin Zhan
    BMC Oral Health, 24 (1)
  • [32] Velopharyngeal Configuration Changes Following Le Fort I Osteotomy With Maxillary Advancement in Patients With Cleft Lip and Palate: A Cephalometric Study
    Wu, Yu
    Wang, Xing
    Ma, Lian
    Li, Zili
    CLEFT PALATE-CRANIOFACIAL JOURNAL, 2015, 52 (06): : 711 - 716
  • [33] The comparison of psychological adjustment of patients with cleft lip and palate after maxillary distraction osteogenesis and conventional orthognathic surgery
    Chua, Hannah Daile P.
    Ho, Samuel M. Y.
    Cheung, Lim Kwong
    ORAL SURGERY ORAL MEDICINE ORAL PATHOLOGY ORAL RADIOLOGY, 2012, 114 (05): : S5 - S10
  • [34] Le Fort I Distraction Using Internal Devices for Maxillary Hypoplasia in Patients With Cleft Lip, Palate, and Alveolus: Complications and Their Prevention and Management
    Mitsukawa, Nobuyuki
    Satoh, Kaneshige
    Morishita, Tadashi
    JOURNAL OF CRANIOFACIAL SURGERY, 2010, 21 (05) : 1428 - 1430
  • [35] Cephalometric Evaluation of Airways After Maxillary Anterior Advancement by Distraction Osteogenesis in Cleft Lip and Palate Patients: A Systematic Review
    Sharshar, Hossam H.
    El-Bialy, Tarek H.
    CLEFT PALATE-CRANIOFACIAL JOURNAL, 2012, 49 (03): : 255 - 261
  • [36] Midfacial Changes Through Anterior Maxillary Distraction Osteogenesis in Patients With Cleft Lip and Palate
    Kanzaki, Hiroyuki
    Imai, Yoshimichi
    Nakajo, Tetsu
    Daimaruya, Takayoshi
    Sato, Akimitsu
    Tachi, Masahiro
    Nunomura, Youhei
    Itagaki, Yusuke
    Nishimura, Kazuaki
    Kochi, Shoko
    Igarashi, Kaoru
    JOURNAL OF CRANIOFACIAL SURGERY, 2017, 28 (04) : 1057 - 1062
  • [37] Le Fort I Osteotomy in Cleft Patients: Maxillary Advancement and Articulation
    Harjunpaa, Roni
    Alaluusua, Suvi
    Leikola, Junnu
    Heliovaara, Arja
    JOURNAL OF CRANIOFACIAL SURGERY, 2022, 33 (02) : 597 - 601
  • [38] Anterior Maxillary Distraction Osteogenesis With Bone-borne Intraoral Buccal Devices for Maxillary Hypoplasia With Cleft Lip and Palate
    Yamagata, Kenji
    Mohri, Tamaki
    Watanabe, Atsushi
    Bukawa, Moeka
    Uchida, Fumihiko
    Fukuzawa, Satoshi
    Ishibashi-Kanno, Naomi
    Bukawa, Hiroki
    JOURNAL OF CRANIOFACIAL SURGERY, 2023, 34 (06) : 1867 - 1871
  • [39] Five-year follow-up of intraoral maxillary distraction with tooth-borne distractor in unilateral cleft lip and palate: A case report
    Sarkar, Gargi
    D'Souza, Ivor Macton
    Kumar, Kiran
    Shetty, Sadashiva
    JOURNAL OF THE WORLD FEDERATION OF ORTHODONTISTS, 2015, 4 (03) : 124 - 133
  • [40] Transversal Maxillary Distraction in Patients with Cleft Lip and Palate
    Martinez Plaza, Adoracion
    Bullejos Martinez, Elena
    Cariati, Paolo
    Fernandez-Valdes Gamez, Ricardo
    Espana Lopez, Antonio
    Fernandez Valades, Ricardo
    JOURNAL OF CRANIOFACIAL SURGERY, 2019, 30 (04) : 1149 - 1153