Two-year follow-up of distraction osteogenesis: Its effect on mandibular ramus height in hemifacial microsomia

Biomechanical effects of surgical cut direction in unilateral mandibular lengthening by distraction osteogenesis using a finite element model

“…As an example, MARQUEZ et al 7 found that after 15 mm ramus vertical lengthening in a case of hemifacial microsomia, lengthening in the vertical dimension relapsed nearly 100%, because as the pterigo-masseteric sling was elongated, the muscles returned to their original lengths, and the condylar head suffered resorption because of the permanent muscle pressure. The distraction chamber mineralized perfectly increasing the ramus length by 15 mm, but the condyle and condylar neck suffered the loss.…”

Meta-Analysis of Mandibular Distraction Osteogenesis: Clinical Applications and Functional Outcomes

“…However, the long-term stability of the lengthening procedure has not been established, and most studies report variable results. 53,57,73,81,91,98,124,141 Grayson et al 44 reported that the long-term growth potential of the distracted bone is limited by the inherent genetic predisposition of an individual and recommended overcorrection to compensate this genetically limited growth potential in children. Shetye et al 141 also recommended the use of functional orthodontic appliances to counterbalance the soft-tissue and suprahyoid muscular forces acting on the distraction regenerate, thereby minimizing the relapse potential.…”

The Determinants of Successful Distraction Osteogenesis of the Mandible in Hemifacial Microsomia From Longitudinal Results

“…28 Because the soft tissue matrix does not allow the increased length of the ramus to be ''permanent,'' DO seems not to permanently maintain the increase of the ramus height. 32 Despite overcorrection of the mandibular dental midline to the nonaffected side, there was relapse of chin point deviation and ramus inclination of both sides during retention (T1-T2) in group 1 ( Table 13). The reason group 2 showed stable result of chin point deviation and occlusal plane canting during retention (T1-T2) ( Table 13) seems to be related to bilateral involvement and growth deficiency of the ramus of both sides.…”

“…28 After DO, most cases still require placement of the removable mandibular occlusal splint and/or the fixed orthodontic appliance to complete treatment. [29][30][31] Although there are several follow-up studies about the results of facial asymmetry correction using DO, 32,33 there are few studies about the sagittal and vertical relationships between the maxilla and the mandible. Because the same treatment protocol may produce a good result in one but not another patient, it is necessary to divide samples according to retention results.…”