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
  • [41] Combining orthodontic tooth movement with distraction osteogenesis to close cleft spaces and improve maxillary arch form in cleft lip and palate patients
    Yen, SLK
    Yamashita, DD
    Gross, J
    Meara, JG
    Yamazaki, K
    Kim, TH
    Reinisch, J
    AMERICAN JOURNAL OF ORTHODONTICS AND DENTOFACIAL ORTHOPEDICS, 2005, 127 (02) : 224 - 232
  • [42] Distraction osteogenesis versus orthognathic surgery for the treatment of maxillary hypoplasia in cleft lip and palate patients: a systematic review
    Austin, S. L.
    Mattick, C. R.
    Waterhouse, P. J.
    ORTHODONTICS & CRANIOFACIAL RESEARCH, 2015, 18 (02) : 96 - 108
  • [43] Speech outcome and velopharyngeal function in cleft palate: Comparison of Le Fort I maxillary osteotomy and distraction osteogenesis - Early results
    Chanchareonsook, Nattharee
    Whitehill, Tara L.
    Samman, Nabil
    CLEFT PALATE-CRANIOFACIAL JOURNAL, 2007, 44 (01): : 23 - 32
  • [44] Long-term skeletal stability after maxillary advancement with distraction osteogenesis in cleft lip and palate patients A systematic review
    Saltaji, Humam
    Major, Michael P.
    Altalibi, Mostafa
    Youssef, Mohamed
    Flores-Mir, Carlos
    ANGLE ORTHODONTIST, 2012, 82 (06) : 1115 - 1122
  • [45] Unilateral advancement of the maxillary minor segment by distraction osteogenesis in patients with repaired unilateral cleft lip and palate: Report of two cases
    Kuroe, K
    Iino, S
    Shomura, K
    Okubo, A
    Sugihara, K
    Ito, G
    CLEFT PALATE-CRANIOFACIAL JOURNAL, 2003, 40 (03): : 317 - 324
  • [46] Skeletal and Dental Stability Following Different Magnitude of Le Fort I Advancement in Patients With Cleft Lip and Palate
    Wangsrimongkol, Buddhathida
    Flores, Roberto L.
    Staffenberg, David A.
    Rodriguez, Eduardo D.
    Shetye, Pradip R.
    JOURNAL OF ORAL AND MAXILLOFACIAL SURGERY, 2021, 79 (09) : 1932 - 1942
  • [47] Reconstruction of the Premaxilla by Segmental Distraction Osteogenesis for Maxillary Retrusion in Cleft Lip and Palate
    Kim, Bong Chul
    Lee, Sang-Hwy
    Park, Kyung-Ran
    Jung, Young-Soo
    Yi, Choong-Kook
    CLEFT PALATE-CRANIOFACIAL JOURNAL, 2014, 51 (02): : 240 - 245
  • [48] Maxillary distraction osteogenesis in the management of cleft lip and palate: report of 2 cases
    Kim, Jin-Woo
    Park, Sung-Ho
    Jang, Jin-Hyun
    Kim, Myung-Rae
    Kim, Sun-Jong
    JOURNAL OF THE KOREAN ASSOCIATION OF ORAL AND MAXILLOFACIAL SURGEONS, 2011, 37 (04) : 321 - 328
  • [49] Maxillary distraction of cleft lip and palate patients by internal maxillary distractors
    Cheung, L. K.
    Chua, H. D.
    PROCEEDINGS OF THE 5TH INTERNATIONAL CONGRESS OF MAXILLOFACIAL AND CRANIOFACIAL DISTRACTION, 2006, : 133 - +
  • [50] Pharyngeal Airway Changes Associated With Maxillary Distraction Osteogenesis in Adult Cleft Lip and Palate Patients
    Aksu, Muge
    Taner, Tulin
    Sahin-Veske, Pinar
    Kocadereli, Ilken
    Konas, Ersoy
    Mavili, Mehmet Emin
    JOURNAL OF ORAL AND MAXILLOFACIAL SURGERY, 2012, 70 (02) : E133 - E140