Internal Maxillary Distraction With a New Bimalar Device

Kahn, Donald R.; Broujerdi, J.A.; Schendel, Stephen A.

doi:10.1016/j.joms.2007.09.006

Cited by 21 publications

(12 citation statements)

References 36 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…[7][8][9] However, there are other works with disappointing results, 10 where the distractor is shown to be ineffective to achieve the desired advancement and to achieve facial convexity and overbite. [7][8][9] However, there are other works with disappointing results, 10 where the distractor is shown to be ineffective to achieve the desired advancement and to achieve facial convexity and overbite.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Maxillary advancement in cleft palate patients with intraoral distraction

Plaza

Núñez

Lara

et al. 2015

Revista Española de Cirugía Oral y Maxilofacial (English Editio

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Maxillary advancement in cleft palate patients with intraoral distraction

Plaza

Núñez

Lara

et al. 2015

Revista Española de Cirugía Oral y Maxilofacial (English Editio

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

“…Although recent studies suggest successful results for midface distraction in mature patients with cleft lip and palate [7,8,11] the outcome of using IDDs for maxillary advancement in these patients was disappointing. A gain of maxillary advancement was achieved in both cases, but the aim to bridge the planned distance completely to reach a convexity of the face and an anterior over-bite failed.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Limitations of Internal Distraction Devices in Mature Patients with Cleft Lip and Palate and Severe Midface Hypoplasia

Rustemeyer

Busch

Bremerich

2011

J. Maxillofac. Oral Surg.

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Purpose We evaluated case-sensitive limitations of internal distraction devices (IDDs) to reveal further options for satisfactory outcomes. Patients and Methods Two male cleft patients aged 22 years (P1) and 20 years (P2) with severe maxillary hypoplasia were treated over 18 months. Cephalometric analyses and analyses of A-point movements by superimposing lateral cephalograms were done before and after activation of IDDs and after bimaxillary surgery (BIMAX). Results After activating IDDs, the vectors deviated and clockwise rotation of the maxilla and vectors occurred. After 8 months, BIMAX was needed to carry out further maxillary advancement. Conclusions IDDs could pave the way to achieve maximal advancement with BIMAX in a second step and justify the overall treatment when comparing the initial situation with outcome.

show abstract

“…Because many of cleft patients were present with vertical maxillary deficiency, surgical correction mostly involved inferior repositioning of the maxilla in conjunction with advancement. Downward movement of maxilla was reported in many studies which include CO [9,11,36,37], EDO [13], and IDO [16,20,22]. Clockwise rotation of the maxilla had been reported with a tendency of posterior open bite in IDO [17,18].…”

Section: 1mentioning

confidence: 97%

“…Intraoral distraction osteogenesis (IDO) has become device of choice in many cleft center [17][18][19][20][21][22]. However, inconsistent change of SN-MP after IDO and were reported [17,23,24].…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%