Literature DB >> 12464203

Long-term results of distraction osteogenesis of the maxilla and midface.

J Wiltfang1, U Hirschfelder, F W Neukam, P Kessler.   

Abstract

Since the beginning of 1998, eight patients have been treated by osteodistraction to correct hypoplasia of the maxilla and midface of various origins. Among them were five patients who were treated by high LeFort I osteotomies and insertion of subcutaneous intraoral distraction devices in the malar region. In the remaining three patients, extraoral distraction devices were applied after LeFort II and III osteotomies. Distraction osteogenesis was successful in all cases, resulting in a mean sagittal bone gain measured parallel to the skull base of 9.0 mm (range 4.5-12.0) in the group treated with intraoral distractors and a mean of 20.3 mm in the extraoral distraction group (range 15.0-25.0). All patients were kept under orthodontic supervision before, during, and after osteodistraction. Long-term cephalometric and clinical evaluation after a mean follow-up period of 24 months in the intraoral distraction group (range 22-26) and 12 months in the extraoral distraction group (range 10-14) show stable results concerning the skeletal and dental relations. Long-term follow-up is necessary.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2002        PMID: 12464203     DOI: 10.1016/s0266435602002474

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Br J Oral Maxillofac Surg        ISSN: 0266-4356            Impact factor:   1.651


  11 in total

1.  [Retrospective view of the development of malocclusion surgery and prospects].

Authors:  E W Steinhäuser
Journal:  Mund Kiefer Gesichtschir       Date:  2003-11-07

2.  Le fort I maxillary advancement using distraction osteogenesis.

Authors:  Patrick D Combs; Raymond J Harshbarger
Journal:  Semin Plast Surg       Date:  2014-11       Impact factor: 2.314

Review 3.  Distraction Osteogenesis Versus Orthognathic Surgery: Demystifying Differences in Concepts, Techniques and Outcomes.

Authors:  Manikandhan Ramanathan; Godwin Alex Kiruba; Amelia Christabel; Anantanarayanan Parameswaran; Sanjanaa Kapoor; Hermann F Sailer
Journal:  J Maxillofac Oral Surg       Date:  2020-07-21

4.  Maxillary movement in cleft patients treated with internal tooth borne distractor.

Authors:  C Sunitha; R Gunaseelan; V Anusha; Kanna Peruman
Journal:  J Maxillofac Oral Surg       Date:  2012-09-11

5.  Deferoxamine expedites consolidation during mandibular distraction osteogenesis.

Authors:  Alexis Donneys; Sagar S Deshpande; Catherine N Tchanque-Fossuo; Kelsey L Johnson; Jordan T Blough; Joseph E Perosky; Kenneth M Kozloff; Peter A Felice; Noah S Nelson; Aaron S Farberg; Benjamin Levi; Steven R Buchman
Journal:  Bone       Date:  2013-04-15       Impact factor: 4.398

6.  A clinical evaluation of midface advancement using intraoral distractors in management of bone stock deficiencies.

Authors:  Ramen Sinha; P Suresh Menon; M G Venugopal
Journal:  Med J Armed Forces India       Date:  2011-08-07

Review 7.  The modifications of the sagittal ramus split osteotomy: a literature review.

Authors:  Roland Böckmann; Joeri Meyns; Eric Dik; Peter Kessler
Journal:  Plast Reconstr Surg Glob Open       Date:  2015-01-08

8.  Treatment outcome and long-term stability of skeletal changes following maxillary distraction in adult subjects of cleft lip and palate.

Authors:  Satinder Pal Singh; Ashok Kumar Jena; Vidya Rattan; Ashok Kumar Utreja
Journal:  Contemp Clin Dent       Date:  2012-04

9.  Monoblock craniofacial internal distraction in a child with Pfeiffer syndrome: a case report.

Authors:  Jaiho Chung; Dong Ha Park; Soo Han Yoon
Journal:  J Korean Med Sci       Date:  2008-04       Impact factor: 2.153

10.  Long-term results of surgically assisted maxillary protraction vs regular facemask.

Authors:  Sirin Nevzatoğlu; Nazan Küçükkeleş
Journal:  Angle Orthod       Date:  2014-03-21       Impact factor: 2.079

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.