Literature DB >> 16026911

Effects of distraction forces and frequency of distraction on bony regeneration.

P Kessler1, F W Neukam, J Wiltfang.   

Abstract

The rate and frequency of distraction have a decisive influence on the regenerative process. We tested a newly developed hydraulic osteodistractor in 12 pigs, which were assigned to have continuous and intermittent osteodistraction of the mandible after osteotomy. The forces necessary to distract the mandible were recorded during intermittent distraction. These data were then used for continuous distraction of the bone. Continuous osteodistraction resulted in intramembranous regeneration of bone, whereas intermittent osteodistraction caused chondroid ossification in the regeneration of the bone. Continuous osteodistraction caused speedier regeneration, and distraction forces were lower than with intermittent distraction.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2005        PMID: 16026911     DOI: 10.1016/j.bjoms.2004.10.015

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


  14 in total

1.  Tissue differentiation and bone regeneration in an osteotomized mandible: a computational analysis of the latency period.

Authors:  A Boccaccio; P J Prendergast; C Pappalettere; D J Kelly
Journal:  Med Biol Eng Comput       Date:  2007-09-27       Impact factor: 2.602

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.  Femoral bone transport by a monolateral external fixator with or without the use of intramedullary nail: a single-department retrospective study.

Authors:  Jun Wan; Lin Ling; Xiang-sheng Zhang; Zhi-hong Li
Journal:  Eur J Orthop Surg Traumatol       Date:  2012-05-25

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.  Mechanical forces direct stem cell behaviour in development and regeneration.

Authors:  Kyle H Vining; David J Mooney
Journal:  Nat Rev Mol Cell Biol       Date:  2017-11-08       Impact factor: 94.444

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

8.  Automating skeletal expansion: An implant for distraction osteogenesis of the mandible.

Authors:  John C Magill; Marten F Byl; Batya Goldwaser; Maria Papadaki; Roger Kromann; Brent Yates; Joseph R Morency; Leonard B Kaban; Maria J Troulis
Journal:  J Med Device       Date:  2009-03       Impact factor: 0.582

Review 9.  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

10.  Histological and physical analysis of bone neoformation by osteogenesis distraction: A preliminary report.

Authors:  Marcello Gaieta Vannucci; Juliana Dreyer; Paulo Kreisner; Leonilson Gaião; João Feliz Duarte Moraes; Marilia Gerhardt de Oliveira
Journal:  Ann Maxillofac Surg       Date:  2011-01
View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.