Midface advancement by gradual distraction

Rachmiel, Adi; Potparić, Zoran; Jackson, Ian T.; Sugihara, Tsuneki; Clayman, Lewis; Topf, Jeffrey S.; Forté, Robert A.

doi:10.1016/0007-1226(93)90169-c

Cited by 109 publications

(32 citation statements)

References 17 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Thus, the parameters used to evaluate DO in long bones may not be optimal to evaluate craniofacial DO. 10 Although there are reports on experimental models in membranous bone of different animals, including dog, 11 pig, 12 rabbit mandibles, [13][14][15] and sheep maxillae, 16,17 comparison and interpretation of data is complex on account of the variations among studies regarding species, the protocol employed, and the anatomical site studied. 18 Experimental models in rats present a series of advantages since the need to use larger animals is avoided, the cost of maintenance is lower, the experimental time points are shorter, and a larger number of animals can be employed.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Experimental model of distraction osteogenesis in edentulous rats

et al. 2011

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Distraction osteogenesis (DO) is a surgical technique producing bone lengthening by distraction of the fracture callus. Although a large number of experimental studies on the events associated with DO of craniofacial skeleton have been reported, the few employing rat mandibular bone DO used complicated designs and produced a small volume of newly formed bone. Thus, this study aims to present an original experimental model of mandibular DO in edentulous rats that produces a sufficient quantity and quality of intramembranous bone. Eight male Wistar rats, weighing 75 g, underwent extraction of lower molars. With rats weighing 350 g, right mandibular osteotomy was performed and the distraction device was placed. The distraction device was custom made using micro-implants, expansion screws, and acrylic resin. Study protocol: latency: 6 days, distraction: ¼ turn (0.175 mm) once a day during 6 d, consolidation: 28 d after distraction phase, sacrifice. DO-treated and contralateral hemimandibles were dissected and compared macroscopically and using radiographic studies. Histological sections were obtained and stained with H&E. A distraction gap filled with newly formed and mature bone tissue was obtained. This model of mandibular DO proved useful to obtain adequate quantity and quality of bone to study bone regeneration

show abstract

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Experimental model of distraction osteogenesis in edentulous rats

et al. 2011

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Osteotomy procedures are not effective in severe maxillary hypoplasia where 10 mm or more anterior advancement of maxilla is required. In osteotomy there is no expansion of overlying soft tissue only bony changes take place; therefore higher rates of relapse are reported [17,18,25]. ?…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…DO has been used successfully for procedures such as maxillary advancement, TMJ reconstruction, alveolar augmentation and mandibular widening in the literature [10][11][12][13][14][15][16][17][18]. Snyder et al [6] were the first to apply this technique to the craniofacial region on canine mandibles.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Hemifacial Microsomia, Treacher Collin's Syndrome, Crouzon's Syndrome, Pfeiffer Syndrome, Soft tissue malformations as in haemangioma, complex facial deformities, patient with severe maxillary hypoplasia (MH), MH associated with cleft lip and palate patient or facial cleft, Hemifacial atrophy, Micrognathia, sleep apnea in adults, children and even new born with a deficiency in their upper airway dimension [10,11,[13][14][15][16][17][18][19][20][21]. It is also indicated in acquired deformities such as, segmental bone deficiency after acute trauma, and in reconstruction of bone, and in patients [19,22].…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Hard and Soft Tissue Changes Following Maxillary Distraction Osteogenesis and Mandibular Setback with Bilateral Sagittal Split Osteotomy

Bawane

Andrade²

2016

J. Maxillofac. Oral Surg.

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Aims of this Study (1) To highlight the role of intraoral submerged device in distraction osteogenesis (DO) of patients requiring two jaw surgeries for the correction of severe developmental maxillary hypoplasia (MH) and mandibular prognathism (MP) (2) To analyse the hard and soft tissue changes following maxillary DO and mandibular setback with bilateral sagittal split osteotomy (BSSO) in patients with severe MH and MP requiring two jaw surgeries. Materials and Methods During the period Jan 2004 to Dec 2006, five patients with severe developmental MH along with MP were treated. In 1st stage maxillary distraction was done. Distraction started on 6th postoperative day, 1 mm distraction was carried out for 10-15 days on either side. Serial radiographs were taken immediate postoperative period for baseline comparison, post-distraction and at the end of distraction. After a period of 3-4 months of distraction 2nd stage was done. In 2nd stage, mandibular setback was done with BSSO and distractors were removed under general anesthesia. Radiographs were taken immediately and at 4 months postoperatively. Cephalometric tracings were carried out preoperatively, post DO and finally after mandibular setback with BSSO. Results The mean horizontal movement of maxilla was 11.4 mm at ANS and 9.6 mm at A point. Upper incisor edge was advanced by 8.8 mms. SNA increased by 8.4°a nd SNB decreased by 4.6°. Nasal projection advanced by 4°. Nasolabial angle normalized in all patients, mean change achieved was 10.8°.

show abstract

“…Rachmiel and others [19][20][21][22][23][24][25] reported that the values related to the treatment effects of surgically assisted protraction of the maxilla using a FM range from 3 to 12 mm in the very short term, compared to conventional FM therapy. In this study we aimed to compare the treatment results of surgically assisted protraction of the maxilla with FM therapy and the results of RMEassisted FM therapy.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Rapid maxillary expansion compared to surgery for assistance in maxillary face mask protraction

Küçükkeleş

Nevzatoğlu²,

Koldaş³

2011

The Angle Orthodontist

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Objective: To compare the treatment outcomes of rapid maxillary expansion (RME) plus face mask (FM) and LeFort 1 osteotomy + FM during maxillary protraction. Materials and Methods: This study was carried on 34 patients all having maxillary retrognathic, anterior cross-bite, Class III skeletal and dental malocclusion characteristics and a concave profile. Eighteen patients with milder maxillary retrognathism were treated with RME + FM. Sixteen other patients with moderate to severe maxillary retrognathism were treated with an incomplete LeFort 1 osteotomy + FM therapy. Cephalometric data were evaluated statistically. Results: Significantly higher values of maxillary advancement and reduced treatment time were achieved with surgically assisted FM therapy. Conclusions: The surgically assisted FM treatment was more rapid and effective in maxillary protraction compared to the RME + FM treatment. (Angle Orthod. 2011;81:42-49.)

show abstract

Midface advancement by gradual distraction

Cited by 109 publications

References 17 publications

Experimental model of distraction osteogenesis in edentulous rats

Experimental model of distraction osteogenesis in edentulous rats

Hard and Soft Tissue Changes Following Maxillary Distraction Osteogenesis and Mandibular Setback with Bilateral Sagittal Split Osteotomy

Rapid maxillary expansion compared to surgery for assistance in maxillary face mask protraction

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About