Literature DB >> 11786809

The effects of magnitude and frequency of distraction forces on tissue regeneration in distraction osteogenesis of the mandible.

Peter A Kessler1, Hans A Merten, Friedrich W Neukam, Jörg Wiltfang.   

Abstract

Callus distraction has become an accepted treatment procedure to lengthen hypoplastic mandibles in humans. For this purpose, extraoral and intraoral devices have been applied successfully. The effects of the distraction vector, distractor stability, and rate and frequency of callus distraction on the regenerating tissues have been examined in various studies. In an experimental animal trial on pigs (n = 12), a newly developed microhydraulic osteodistractor was tested. The animals were evenly assigned to two groups to perform a continuous and noncontinuous osteodistraction of the mandible. Initially, the forces necessary to distract the pig mandibles were recorded from a noncontinuous distraction procedure; the results were then used to perform continuous bone distraction. Besides testing the new distractor, the study proved that in continuous osteodistraction, intramembranous bone regeneration occurred, whereas in noncontinuous osteodistraction the bone regeneration process followed a chondroid ossification. In continuous osteodistraction, the bone regeneration proceeded at a higher speed with the lower distraction forces compared with noncontinuous distraction, thereby reducing the consolidation period. Clinical and microscopical results are presented.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2002        PMID: 11786809     DOI: 10.1097/00006534-200201000-00027

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Plast Reconstr Surg        ISSN: 0032-1052            Impact factor:   4.730


  8 in total

1.  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 2.  Biomechanical configurations of mandibular transport distraction osteogenesis devices.

Authors:  Uriel Zapata; Mohammed E Elsalanty; Paul C Dechow; Lynne A Opperman
Journal:  Tissue Eng Part B Rev       Date:  2010-06       Impact factor: 6.389

3.  Skeletal and soft tissue response to automated, continuous, curvilinear distraction osteogenesis.

Authors:  Zachary S Peacock; Brad J Tricomi; Matthew E Lawler; William C Faquin; John C Magill; Brian A Murphy; Leonard B Kaban; Maria J Troulis
Journal:  J Oral Maxillofac Surg       Date:  2014-01-16       Impact factor: 1.895

4.  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

5.  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

Review 6.  Mechanotransduction of bone cells in vitro: mechanobiology of bone tissue.

Authors:  M Mullender; A J El Haj; Y Yang; M A van Duin; E H Burger; J Klein-Nulend
Journal:  Med Biol Eng Comput       Date:  2004-01       Impact factor: 2.602

7.  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

Review 8.  The biology of distraction osteogenesis for correction of mandibular and craniomaxillofacial defects: A review.

Authors:  Subodh Shankar Natu; Iqbal Ali; Sarwar Alam; Kolli Yada Giri; Anshita Agarwal; Vrishali Ajit Kulkarni
Journal:  Dent Res J (Isfahan)       Date:  2014-01
  8 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.