Long-term skeletal and dental stability of mandibular symphyseal distraction osteogenesis with a hybrid distractor

King, John W; Wallace, James C.; Winter, Daniel Luke; Niculescu, Julia A

doi:10.1016/j.ajodo.2011.06.030

Cited by 25 publications

(14 citation statements)

References 23 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Both toothborne and hybrid distraction devices are recognized for their effective treatment of mandibular crowding. 8,14,15,18 Analysis of study models and radiographs supported the use of both tooth-borne and hybrid distractors to effectively resolve mandibular crowding. The results were consistent with previous literature stating that the greatest expansion takes place nearest to the site of distraction.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Skeletal and dental effects of tooth-borne versus hybrid devices for mandibular symphyseal distraction osteogenesis

Niculescu

King

Lindauer

2013

The Angle Orthodontist

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Objective: To evaluate and compare, retrospectively, the skeletal and dental effects of mandibular symphyseal distraction osteogenesis (MSDO) achieved through the use of tooth-borne versus hybrid distractors. Materials and Methods: Pretreatment (T1), predistraction (T2), postdistraction (T3), and posttreatment (T4) orthodontic records were collected and analyzed for 47 patients (20 toothborne, 27 hybrid). At each time point, records included intraoral photographs, study models, postero-anterior cephalometric radiographs, and lateral cephalometric radiographs. Submental vertex radiographs were taken at T2, T3, and T4. Changes in a total of 18 measurements were analyzed to compare patients undergoing tooth-borne versus hybrid distraction. Results: The cumulative effects of orthodontics and MSDO produced similar gains in measured arch widths, with a decreased irregularity index in both groups (P . .05). However, there were differences in the timing during which the expansion was achieved. The hybrid distractor group gained space during the distraction phase of treatment. The tooth-borne group showed greater gains during pre-and postdistraction orthodontics. Comparisons of intercanine and interbone marker widths demonstrated a more parallel separation of bone during distraction with the hybrid distractor (P , .001). Distraction with the tooth-borne distractor was disproportionate, with greater separation of the canines in alveolar bone than of the bone markers in basal bone. During postdistraction orthodontics, the tooth-borne distractor group showed statistically greater increases in measurements. Conclusion: Both skeletal and dental expansion was achieved with both appliances. Greater skeletal expansion was achieved with a hybrid distractor. Greater dental expansion was achieved with a tooth-borne distractor. (Angle Orthod. 2014;84:68-75.)

show abstract

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…7 More recent research has supported MSDO as a treatment option when risks to periodontal health and esthetic outcomes contraindicate the use of more traditional approaches. 8 At present, multiple distraction devices are available. Bone-borne, tooth-borne, and hybrid distraction devices are options for MSDO.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Skeletal and dental effects of tooth-borne versus hybrid devices for mandibular symphyseal distraction osteogenesis

Niculescu

King

Lindauer

2013

The Angle Orthodontist

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…The specific goal is gaining visible space. If reasonable expansion limits have not been defined, most authors agree to a standard limit of between 6 mm and 8 mm 15,17,20 , which equates to half the amount of space gained by extracting the premolars (15 mm). Distraction osteogenesis should therefore be reserved for cases of moderate-to-severe anterior overcrowding.…”

Section: Indications and Contraindications For Symphyseal Distractionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Contribution of mandibular symphyseal distraction osteogenesis to our therapeutic strategies

Pascon¹,

Bazert

Bardinet

2016

J Dentofacial Anom Orthod

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Distraction osteogenesis helps create new bone by using the natural bone repair process. This technique, applied to the symphysis, affords a new perspective: increasing the mandibular transverse dimension in a stable way due to a simultaneous expansion of the skeletal structure. In this respect, it represents a potential alternative to therapy conventionally implemented to remedy dental crowding and mandibular transverse deficiency. All the same, the technique remains marginal as it is considered to be too invasive and risky. With the exception of the patient's cooperation, the success of mandibular symphyseal distraction osteogenesis (MSDO) relies on three main points: good knowledge of indications, strict compliance with the protocol, and lastly the prevention and management of possible complications. After reviewing these three sections, we will cover a few clinical applications.

show abstract

“…[11][12][13] Successful dental and skeletal expansions have been demonstrated with both tooth-borne and hybrid distractors.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…12,13,15 A clinical trial comparing posttreatment to follow-up records evaluating a hybrid appliance concluded that no statistically significant transverse changes occurred during the mean follow-up time of 7.5 years after distraction. 11 No long-term direct comparison is available to evaluate the dental and skeletal stability of MSDO achieved with different appliances.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Long-term skeletodental stability of mandibular symphyseal distraction osteogenesis: Tooth-borne vs hybrid distraction appliances

Durham

King

Robinson

et al. 2016

The Angle Orthodontist

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Objective: To evaluate and compare the long-term skeletodental stability of mandibular symphyseal distraction osteogenesis (MSDO) achieved with the use of tooth-borne vs. hybrid distraction appliances. Materials and Methods: Posttreatment and follow-up orthodontic records were collected for 33 patients. The 14 patients who underwent distraction with a tooth-borne appliance had a mean follow-up of 5.08 years. The 19 patients who underwent distraction with a hybrid appliance had a mean follow-up of 6.07 years. Records included intraoral photographs, study models, posteroanterior cephalometric radiographs, and lateral cephalometric radiographs. Total changes of 16 measurements were analyzed to compare patients who underwent the tooth-borne vs. the hybrid distraction. Results: Both groups shared several similar and significant (P , .05) changes from posttreatment to follow-up records. Cast analysis showed a decrease in intercanine width and arch length and an increase in irregularity index. The postero-anterior cephalometric radiograph showed an increase in the width of the interincisal apices. The lateral cephalometric radiograph showed a decrease in the MP-L1 angle. The only statistically significant difference between the two appliances was the intercentral incisor contact point. Conclusion: Changes found are consistent with those found in untreated and orthodontically treated individuals over time. The long-term changes in the current patient sample can be determined to be expected and acceptable. MSDO is a viable treatment option with the use of either a hybrid or tooth-borne appliance. (Angle Orthod. 2017;87:246-253)

show abstract

Long-term skeletal and dental stability of mandibular symphyseal distraction osteogenesis with a hybrid distractor

Cited by 25 publications

References 23 publications

Skeletal and dental effects of tooth-borne versus hybrid devices for mandibular symphyseal distraction osteogenesis

Skeletal and dental effects of tooth-borne versus hybrid devices for mandibular symphyseal distraction osteogenesis

Contribution of mandibular symphyseal distraction osteogenesis to our therapeutic strategies

Long-term skeletodental stability of mandibular symphyseal distraction osteogenesis: Tooth-borne vs hybrid distraction appliances

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About