Mandibular distraction force: Laboratory data and clinical correlation

Robinson, Randolph C.; O’Neal, Patrick J.; Robinson, Ginger H.

doi:10.1053/joms.2001.22688

Cited by 33 publications

(33 citation statements)

References 40 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…In an attempt to partially access the validity of this approach, the predictions of the model were compared to the results of Robinson et al [45] who measured the distraction force necessary for expanding the bone callus of human mandibles submitted to hemimandibular osteotomies.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Tissue differentiation and bone regeneration in an osteotomized mandible: a computational analysis of the latency period

Boccaccio

Prendergast

Pappalettere

et al. 2007

Med Biol Eng Comput

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Mandibular symphyseal distraction osteogenesis is a common clinical procedure to modify the geometrical shape of the mandible for correcting problems of dental overcrowding and arch shrinkage. In spite of consolidated clinical use, questions remain concerning the optimal latency period and the influence of mastication loading on osteogenesis within the callus prior to the first distraction of the mandible. This work utilized a mechano-regulation model to assess bone regeneration within the callus of an osteotomized mandible. A 3D model of the mandible was reconstructed from CT scan data and meshed using poroelastic finite elements. The stimulus regulating tissue differentiation within the callus was hypothesized to be a function of the strain and fluid flow computed by the finite element model. This model was then used to analyse tissue differentiation during a fifteen day latency period, defined as the time between the day of the osteotomy and the day when the first distraction is given to the device. The following predictions are made: (i) the mastication forces generated during the latency period support osteogenesis in certain regions of the callus, and that during the latency period the percentage of progenitor cells differentiating into osteoblasts increases; (ii) reducing the mastication load by 70% during the latency period increases the number of progenitor cells differentiating into osteoblasts; (iii) the stiffness of new tissue increases at a slower rate on the side of bone callus next to the occlusion of the mandibular ramus which could cause asymmetries in the bone tissue formation with respect to the middle sagittal plane. Although the model predicts that the mastication loading generates such asymmetries, their effects on the spatial distribution of callus mechanical properties are insignificant for typical latency periods used clinically. It is also predicted that a latency period of longer than a week will increase the risk of premature bone union across the callus.

show abstract

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Tissue differentiation and bone regeneration in an osteotomized mandible: a computational analysis of the latency period

Boccaccio

Prendergast

Pappalettere

et al. 2007

Med Biol Eng Comput

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…In the craniofacial area, Wiltfang et al (2001) using a micro hydraulic distractor device on the mandible of pigs observed that forces up to 2500kPa were necessary to move the cylinders` piston and 1200 -1300 kPa necessary for continuous distraction. Robinson et al (2001) measured the mean force of 4.2 N-cm of torque or an equivalent force of 35.6 N to lengthen the human mandible. However, measurements were performed indirectly using www.intechopen.com laboratory data and clinical correlation.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…The great variability of distraction devices, complexity of methodology employed, site of distraction force application, and anatomical structure seem to dictate great influence. In the craniofacial area, only few studies have examined the distraction forces required to lengthen the mandible during distraction, even though measurements were performed indirectly through the measurement of torque necessary to perform the activation of the distractor (Robinson et al, 2001, Burstain et al 2008. Recently, the authors have developed a simple mechanism to measure and adjust maxillary distraction forces during maxillary advancement (Suzuki & Suzuki, 2010).…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Assessment of Maxillary Distraction Forces in Cleft Lip and Palate Patients

Suzuki¹,

Suzuki²

2011

Biomechanics in Applications

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

“…Whereas a number of in vitro studies have investigated the relationship between the applied forces and the resulting bone deformation, much less is known about the in vivo behaviour of intact or osteotomized bones. Because of the technical problems involved, it is difficult to measure directly the force required to distract the various skull bones and there is only one recent report on this subject in the literature (Robinson et al, 2001). On account of their more simplified geometry, the distraction forces have mainly been measured in long bones.…”

Section: Bone Biomechanicsmentioning

confidence: 99%