Literature DB >> 10800906

Effects of latency and rate on bone formation in a porcine mandibular distraction model.

M J Troulis1, J Glowacki, D H Perrott, L B Kaban.   

Abstract

PURPOSE: Long treatment protocols currently limit the application of distraction osteogenesis (DO). The purpose of this study was to develop a porcine model for DO and to define the effects of latency and distraction rate on bone formation.
MATERIALS AND METHODS: Distractors were placed through submandibular incisions. For analysis of latency, mandibular osteotomies were distracted after 0 (n = 3) or 4 (n = 2) days at a rate of 1 mm/d (7 days) with 14 days fixation. For analysis of rate, osteotomies were distracted at 1 mm (n = 4), 2 mm (n = 4), or 4 mm (n = 4) per day to produce a 12-mm gap with 24 days fixation. DO wounds were assessed in vivo with bimanual palpation to detect mobility across the gap. Harvested specimens were evaluated by gross appearance and bimanual palpation. Standardized radiographic techniques were used to estimate bone density.
RESULTS: During DO, animals showed normal activity. There were no infections, and no distractors were removed prematurely. Clinical and radiographic evaluation of the groups that underwent distraction after 0- or 4-day latency showed equivalent healing. In the comparison of distraction rates, stability was greatest in the group distracted at 1 mm/d.
CONCLUSIONS: A porcine model for mandibular DO has been developed in which mandibular lengthening was successfully performed without latency and at a rate of 1 mm/d. The relationships among latency, gap size, rate, and duration of fixation are poorly understood and can be defined with relevant animal models.

Mesh:

Year:  2000        PMID: 10800906     DOI: 10.1016/s0278-2391(00)90012-0

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  J Oral Maxillofac Surg        ISSN: 0278-2391            Impact factor:   1.895


  15 in total

1.  Differences in mandibular distraction osteogenesis after corticotomy and osteotomy.

Authors:  J Hu; J Li; D Wang; M J Buckley; S Agarwal
Journal:  Int J Oral Maxillofac Surg       Date:  2002-04       Impact factor: 2.789

2.  Masticatory mechanics of a mandibular distraction osteogenesis site: interfragmentary micromovement.

Authors:  Zongyang Sun; Katherine L Rafferty; Mark A Egbert; Susan W Herring
Journal:  Bone       Date:  2007-04-25       Impact factor: 4.398

3.  Gray-scale ultrasonography in the evaluation of bone callus in distraction osteogenesis of the mandible: initial findings.

Authors:  Costanza Bruno; Salvatore Minniti; Editta Buttura-da-Prato; Massimo Albanese; Pier Francesco Nocini; Roberto Pozzi-Mucelli
Journal:  Eur Radiol       Date:  2008-01-26       Impact factor: 5.315

Review 4.  Bone regeneration during distraction osteogenesis.

Authors:  Lisa R Amir; Vincent Everts; Antonius L J J Bronckers
Journal:  Odontology       Date:  2009-07-29       Impact factor: 2.634

Review 5.  Distraction histogenesis of the maxillofacial region.

Authors:  Aydin Gülses; Metin Sencimen; Mustafa Ayna; Matthias Gierloff; Yahya Açil
Journal:  Oral Maxillofac Surg       Date:  2015-04-18

6.  The Effect of Bone Marrow Mesenchymal Stem Cells Application on Distracted Bone Quality during Rapid Rate of Distraction Osteogenesis.

Authors:  Marwa El Kassaby; Khaled Abd El Kader; Nahed Khamis; Alaa Al Hammoud; Alaa Ben Talb; Yasser Nabil El Hadidi
Journal:  Craniomaxillofac Trauma Reconstr       Date:  2017-07-19

7.  Dento-Alveolar distraction osteogenesis using rigid intra-oral tooth borne distraction device.

Authors:  Arvind Nair; J Phani Kumar; V Venkataramana; A Yuvaraj; V Sridhar Reddy; S Kishore Kumar
Journal:  J Int Oral Health       Date:  2014-04-26

8.  The effect of periosteal injury and masticatory micromovement on the healing of a mandibular distraction osteogenesis site.

Authors:  Zongyang Sun; Susan W Herring
Journal:  Arch Oral Biol       Date:  2009-01-13       Impact factor: 2.633

9.  Automated continuous distraction osteogenesis may allow faster distraction rates: a preliminary study.

Authors:  Zachary S Peacock; Brad J Tricomi; Brian A Murphy; John C Magill; Leonard B Kaban; Maria J Troulis
Journal:  J Oral Maxillofac Surg       Date:  2013-03-15       Impact factor: 1.895

10.  Bilateral Continuous Automated Distraction Osteogenesis: Proof of Principle.

Authors:  Zachary S Peacock; Brad J Tricomi; William C Faquin; John C Magill; Brian A Murphy; Leonard B Kaban; Maria J Troulis
Journal:  J Craniofac Surg       Date:  2015-11       Impact factor: 1.046

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.