Literature DB >> 11420905

Comparison of different distraction rates in the mandible: an experimental investigation.

K A al Ruhaimi1.   

Abstract

This study evaluated bone distracted in rabbit mandibles at different intervals and with different daily rates of distraction histologically with the goal of attaining a universally accepted distraction protocol. Osteogenesis was investigated in mandibles distracted at different rates in 24 New Zealand rabbits using a custom-made submerged distractor. Distraction was started on the third postoperative day for a total of 10 mm. The animals were divided into four groups each containing six rabbits. Group 1 was distracted 0.5 mm twice a day; Group 2 was distracted 1.0 mm once a day; Group 3 was distracted 1.0 mm twice a day and Group 4 was distracted 2.0 mm once a day. All the animals were sacrificed 6 weeks after completion of distraction. Half of the distracted mandibles were decalcified for H&E staining and polarized light microscopy studies. Sections of the undecalcified half of the samples were stained with Goldner's stain. The results indicate that a distraction rate of 1.0 mm per day produced the best osteogenesis among the tested rates. There was no great difference in osteogenesis between 1.0 mm once a day and 0.5 mm twice a day. However, 0.5-mm distraction may result in immature bone healing. Distraction of 1.0 mm twice a day resulted in incomplete osteogenesis, while distraction of 2.0 mm once a day resulted in fibrous union. It is clear from these results that a shorter period of device fixation should be achieved by methods other than rapid distraction.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2001        PMID: 11420905     DOI: 10.1054/ijom.2001.0046

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Int J Oral Maxillofac Surg        ISSN: 0901-5027            Impact factor:   2.789


  6 in total

1.  Assessment of Mandibular Distraction Regenerate Using Ultrasonography and Cone Beam Computed Tomography: A Clinical Study.

Authors:  Jitender Dabas; Sujata Mohanty; Zainab Chaudhary; Amita Rani
Journal:  Craniomaxillofac Trauma Reconstr       Date:  2015-09-24

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

Review 3.  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

4.  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

5.  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

6.  Relationship of distraction rate with inferior alveolar nerve degeneration-regeneration shift.

Authors:  Ying-Hua Zhao; Shi-Jian Zhang; Zi-Hui Yang; Xiao-Chang Liu; De-Lin Lei; Jing Li; Lei Wang
Journal:  Neural Regen Res       Date:  2018-02       Impact factor: 5.135

  6 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.