Literature DB >> 15741029

Patients' responses to distraction osteogenesis: a multi-centre study.

A C Primrose1, E Broadfoot, P A Diner, F Molina, K F Moos, A F Ayoub.   

Abstract

This investigation aimed to compare and contrast practical difficulties experienced by 54 children from three different centres (Mexico City, New York, Paris) treated with either extra-oral or intra-oral distraction devices. The possible effect of distraction osteogenesis on pain/sleeping difficulty, speech and eating problems and disturbance of recreational activities and alteration in sensation were investigated. It was expected that intra-oral devices would reduce the difficulties associated with the distraction process and their psychological effect on the child. Some benefits resulting from the use of intra-oral devices were identified, these included fewer sleeping problems (P = 0.006) and less disturbance of recreational activities (P = 0.002). However, eating and maintaining oral hygiene were more problematic with intra-oral devices the differences between the intra-oral and extra-oral groups was approaching significance at P = 0.07. A major disadvantage of the extra oral device was scarring. In both groups the alteration of lip sensation was temporary, pain was limited to the time of activation of the distraction device. A high level of patients' cooperation was mandatory for successful completion of the treatment.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2005        PMID: 15741029     DOI: 10.1016/j.ijom.2004.08.008

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


  8 in total

1.  Guideline for Care of Patients With the Diagnoses of Craniosynostosis: Working Group on Craniosynostosis.

Authors:  Irene M J Mathijssen
Journal:  J Craniofac Surg       Date:  2015-09       Impact factor: 1.046

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.  Satisfaction audit of patients undergoing mandibular distraction osteogenesis with extra-oral distraction appliances.

Authors:  Renu Datta; Ashok Utreja; S P Singh; Vidya Rattan
Journal:  J Maxillofac Oral Surg       Date:  2013-12-21

Review 4.  Mandibular distraction osteogenesis assisted by cell-based tissue engineering: a systematic review.

Authors:  B C Tee; Z Sun
Journal:  Orthod Craniofac Res       Date:  2015-04       Impact factor: 1.826

Review 5.  Distraction osteogenesis in the surgical treatment of craniostenosis: a comparison of internal and external craniofacial distractor devices.

Authors:  S Pelo; G Gasparini; A Di Petrillo; G Tamburrini; C Di Rocco
Journal:  Childs Nerv Syst       Date:  2007-09-18       Impact factor: 1.475

6.  The assessment of new bone formation induced by unfocused extracorporeal shock wave therapy applied on pre-surgical phase of distraction osteogenesis.

Authors:  Erman Senel; Enes Ozkan; Mehmet Cihan Bereket; Mehmet Emin Onger
Journal:  Eur Oral Res       Date:  2019-09-01

7.  Outcome analysis of biplanar mandibular distraction in adults.

Authors:  Debarati Chattopadhyay; Madhubari Vathulya; Praveen Ambadivalappil Jayaprakash; Akshay Kapoor
Journal:  Arch Craniofac Surg       Date:  2021-02-20

8.  Evaluation of use of distraction osteogenesis in mandibular retrognathia and its effect on soft and hard tissues and airway.

Authors:  Aditya Mohan Alwal; G Rajasekhar; Nandagopal Vura; M V S Sudhir; Srikanth Damera
Journal:  Natl J Maxillofac Surg       Date:  2019-11-12
  8 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.