Mandibular Advancement Using an Intra-Oral Osteogenic Distraction Technique: a report of three clinical cases

Abstract

Osteogenic distraction has been used for decades to lengthen limbs and now attention is focused upon its use within the craniofacial skeleton. This paper addresses distraction of the mandible. It is proposed that mandibular osteogenic distraction could be a possible adjunct to the orthodontic treatment of those adult patients with skeletal anomalies, who would benefit from combined orthodontic/orthognathic treatment. Three consecutive cases from one unit are presented, where adult patients with severe Class II division 1 malocclusions have undergone orthodontic treatment combined with mandibular osteogenic distraction, instead of conventional bilateral sagittal split osteotomies.

A preliminary study of hardness and modulus of elasticity in sheep mandibles submitted to distraction osteogenesis and low-level laser therapy

“…The distraction osteogenesis protocol adopted in the present study, namely, a latency period of 5 days and device activation once a day at 1 mm/day, is widely used and consolidated in the literature (9)(10)(11)(12). The choice of a consensual distraction protocol is justified by our main objective of assessing the influence of laser on the quality of newly formed bone.…”

A paralleling device and ethylene vinyl acetate baffles for use with mandibular distraction osteogenesis: technical note

“…Inappropriate mandibular advancement may lead to facial asymmetry, to an iatrogenic dental lateral or anterior open bite, or unilateral crossbite. 9 The template and paralleling device described here allows accurate placement of the intraoral distractors in an ideal position for a good final result. This is illustrated by the present case in which the planned result was achieved and there was no need for elastic molding of the regenerate during distraction.…”

“…Stucki-McCormick et al planned surgery using radiographs and CT scans alone, 8 but the detail reported is insufficient to replicate accurate positioning of the distraction device. Some cases have been successfully treated with corticotomy and simply placement of the intra-oral distractor parallel to the occlusal plane, 9 but the majority of reported cases use stereolithography models to plan both mandibular cuts and placement of the lengthening device. 10,11 Troulis et al developed a 3-dimensional treatment planning system based on CT data 12 and, similarly, Gateno et al 4 described the use of 3-dimensional modeling with animation to simulate mandibular distraction using virtual reality.…”

Mechanobiology of Fracture Healing: Basic Principles and Applications in Orthodontics and Orthopaedics

“…Such results lead us to conclude that the optimal duration of the latency period is: 5-6 days for the young patient, 7-8 and 9-10 days for the adult and the elder patients, respectively. (Mattik et al, 2001), reported three clinical cases of young patients 18, 19 and 28 years old, for whom a latency period of 5 days was adopted. Lazar et al (Lazar et al, 2003) submitted a 62-years old patient to mandibular distraction osteogenesis.…”