INTRODUCTION: A malformed mandible and an abnormally positioned mandibular foramen make it difficult to plan an ideal osteotomy line for mandibular distraction. In addition, there have been reports of such complications as nonunion, damage and stretch injury of the inferior alveolar nerve and tooth germ damage when conventional osteotomy or corticotomy are used for mandibular distraction. The authors utilized the original sagittal split ramus osteotomy for mandibular distraction. PATIENTS AND METHODS: Five patients (three unilateral hemifacial microsomia, one bilateral hemifacial microsomia, and one mandibular retrusion) were included in this study of distraction osteogenesis using the sagittal split ramus osteotomy. Extraoral distraction devices were applied to the first four patients. An intraoral device with mono-cortical screw fixation was used for the fifth patient. RESULT: In all five cases, the results of the distraction were satisfactory. Complications (as listed) of conventional osteotomy when used for distraction were avoided. Satisfactory results were achieved and these were also well maintained postoperatively (mean follow up: 36 months). CONCLUSION: The authors believe that sagittal osteotomy for mandibular distraction osteogenesis makes it possible, to avoid injury to the inferior alveolar nerve during operation and stretching injury during distraction and to prevent tooth germ injury. It is also possible to diversify the osteotomy line for various force vectors to enlarge the bony contact surface area. Therefore, we suggest that sagittal split ramus osteotomy should be used as a preferred modification of osteotomy for mandibular distraction.
INTRODUCTION: A malformed mandible and an abnormally positioned mandibular foramen make it difficult to plan an ideal osteotomy line for mandibular distraction. In addition, there have been reports of such complications as nonunion, damage and stretch injury of the inferior alveolar nerve and tooth germ damage when conventional osteotomy or corticotomy are used for mandibular distraction. The authors utilized the original sagittal split ramus osteotomy for mandibular distraction. PATIENTS AND METHODS: Five patients (three unilateral hemifacial microsomia, one bilateral hemifacial microsomia, and one mandibular retrusion) were included in this study of distraction osteogenesis using the sagittal split ramus osteotomy. Extraoral distraction devices were applied to the first four patients. An intraoral device with mono-cortical screw fixation was used for the fifth patient. RESULT: In all five cases, the results of the distraction were satisfactory. Complications (as listed) of conventional osteotomy when used for distraction were avoided. Satisfactory results were achieved and these were also well maintained postoperatively (mean follow up: 36 months). CONCLUSION: The authors believe that sagittal osteotomy for mandibular distraction osteogenesis makes it possible, to avoid injury to the inferior alveolar nerve during operation and stretching injury during distraction and to prevent tooth germ injury. It is also possible to diversify the osteotomy line for various force vectors to enlarge the bony contact surface area. Therefore, we suggest that sagittal split ramus osteotomy should be used as a preferred modification of osteotomy for mandibular distraction.