OBJECTIVE: To probe the possibility of a new technique of primary cleft palate repair by sutural distraction osteogenesis. METHODS: The distractor was made of TiNi-shape memory alloy with 2 secure and 2 active arms. Under general anesthesia, 1 hole was drilled on each maxillary process and horizontal plate of palatine. The four arms of the distractor were inserted into holes. The palatine bones would then be distracted and moved medially and posteriorly. After 4 to 5 months' distraction, the two cleft edges approached gradually. The residual cleft, according to its width, was repaired by direct stitch of muco-periosteum incised at cleft edges, or with an additional relaxing incision on one side of the palate. Direct measurement of width of maxillary arch and the cleft, and the length of the hard palate was performed before and after distraction to evaluate the effects of distraction. RESULTS: Eight cleft children at their 2 to 4 years of age were treated by the new technique. Two of them terminated the procedure due to premature dislocation of the distractor. Six children underwent 37 to 126 days' distraction. Dramatic narrowing of the cleft and lengthening of hard palate were seen in these children, with the average narrowing of the cleft being 6.5 mm and average lengthening of the hard palate being 4.8 mm. CONCLUSION: It is clinically demonstrated that palatal tissue regeneration and cleft closure or narrowing and hard palate lengthening could be achieved by the technique of sutural distraction osteogenesis.
OBJECTIVE: To probe the possibility of a new technique of primary cleft palate repair by sutural distraction osteogenesis. METHODS: The distractor was made of TiNi-shape memory alloy with 2 secure and 2 active arms. Under general anesthesia, 1 hole was drilled on each maxillary process and horizontal plate of palatine. The four arms of the distractor were inserted into holes. The palatine bones would then be distracted and moved medially and posteriorly. After 4 to 5 months' distraction, the two cleft edges approached gradually. The residual cleft, according to its width, was repaired by direct stitch of muco-periosteum incised at cleft edges, or with an additional relaxing incision on one side of the palate. Direct measurement of width of maxillary arch and the cleft, and the length of the hard palate was performed before and after distraction to evaluate the effects of distraction. RESULTS: Eight cleft children at their 2 to 4 years of age were treated by the new technique. Two of them terminated the procedure due to premature dislocation of the distractor. Six children underwent 37 to 126 days' distraction. Dramatic narrowing of the cleft and lengthening of hard palate were seen in these children, with the average narrowing of the cleft being 6.5 mm and average lengthening of the hard palate being 4.8 mm. CONCLUSION: It is clinically demonstrated that palatal tissue regeneration and cleft closure or narrowing and hard palate lengthening could be achieved by the technique of sutural distraction osteogenesis.