Literature DB >> 16053864

Long-term results in maxillary deficiency using intraoral devices.

A Rachmiel1, D Aizenbud, M Peled.   

Abstract

Cleft lip and palate patients often present maxillary retrusion and class III malocclusion after cleft repair. Maxillary distraction is a technique that can provide simultaneous skeletal advancement and expansion of soft tissue. Twelve patients with cleft maxillary deficiency due to cleft lip and palate were treated by Le Fort I osteotomy and two intraoral distraction devices that were activated after 4 days of latency period, 1mm per day on both sides. Long-term clinical and cephalometric evaluation of one and two years demonstrate stable results concerning the skeletal, dental and soft tissue relations. In this paper we discuss the advantages of distraction osteogenesis as a method for treatment of maxillary deficiency in cleft patients in terms of stability and relapse. The indications for maxillary distraction: (1) Moderate and severe retrusion that needs large advancement as in cleft lip and palate patients. (2) Forward and downward lengthening of the maxilla with no need for intermediate bone graft. (3) Growing patients. In conclusion, maxillary distraction in moderate or severe retrusion, as in cleft patients offers marked maxillary advancement with long-term stability.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2005        PMID: 16053864     DOI: 10.1016/j.ijom.2005.01.004

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


  18 in total

1.  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 2.  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

3.  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

Review 4.  Long-term skeletal stability after maxillary advancement with distraction osteogenesis in cleft lip and palate patients.

Authors:  Humam Saltaji; Michael P Major; Mostafa Altalibi; Mohamed Youssef; Carlos Flores-Mir
Journal:  Angle Orthod       Date:  2012-04-12       Impact factor: 2.079

5.  Maxillary advancement using distraction osteogenesis with intraoral device.

Authors:  Yoko Takigawa; Setsuko Uematsu; Kenji Takada
Journal:  Angle Orthod       Date:  2010-11       Impact factor: 2.079

6.  Hard and Soft Tissue Changes Following Maxillary Distraction Osteogenesis and Mandibular Setback with Bilateral Sagittal Split Osteotomy.

Authors:  Shilpa S Bawane; Neelam N Andrade
Journal:  J Maxillofac Oral Surg       Date:  2016-03-16

7.  Treatment of maxillary cleft palate: Distraction osteogenesis vs. orthognathic surgery.

Authors:  Adi Rachmiel; Michal Even-Almos; Dror Aizenbud
Journal:  Ann Maxillofac Surg       Date:  2012-07

8.  Stability after Cleft Maxillary Distraction Osteogenesis or Conventional Orthognathic Surgery.

Authors:  Kristian Andersen; Martin Svenstrup; Thomas Klit Pedersen; Annelise Küseler; John Jensen; Sven Erik Nørholt
Journal:  J Oral Maxillofac Res       Date:  2015-06-30

9.  A Retrospective Study of Cleft lip and palate Patients' Satisfaction after Maxillary Distraction or Traditional Advancement of the Maxilla.

Authors:  Kristian Andersen; Sven Erik Nørholt; Annelise Küseler; John Jensen; Thomas Klit Pedersen
Journal:  J Oral Maxillofac Res       Date:  2012-07-01

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.