Literature DB >> 16241179

Stability of maxillary surgical movement in unilateral cleft lip and palate with preceding alveolar bone grafting.

Pornpaka Thongdee1, Nabil Samman.   

Abstract

OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the long-term three-dimensional stability of Le Fort I maxillary osteotomy in patients with unilateral cleft lip and palate (CLP) who had preceding alveolar bone grafting.
DESIGN: Analysis of prospectively collected data.
SETTING: University teaching hospital and postgraduate training center.
SUBJECTS: Thirty consecutive patients with unilateral cleft lip and palate, who underwent the procedure between 1990 and 1999, satisfied the inclusion criteria and had complete records. There were 9 males and 21 females, with an age range of 14 to 28 years (mean, 18 years), and follow-up range of 12 to 66 months (mean, 62 months).
METHODS: Cephalometric and study cast analyses using pre- and postoperative records (3, 6, 12, 24, and 36 months). Evaluation of surgical movement and postsurgical change at all above time intervals was carried out to determine stability of surgical maxillary movement in the horizontal and vertical planes and to identify rotational and transverse relapse.
RESULTS: Total relapse of surgical movement was 31% in the horizontal plane and 52% in the vertical plane, as well as 30% rotational. Relapse correlated with extent of surgical movement, and most relapse occurred in the first 6 months after surgery. No significant transverse relapse was documented.
CONCLUSION: Alveolar bone grafting prior to osteotomy stabilizes the transverse dimension of the dental arch, but does not improve horizontal, vertical, or rotational relapse, which remains significant. Correlation of relapse with extent of surgical movement does suggest that planned over-correction is a reasonable option.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2005        PMID: 16241179     DOI: 10.1597/04-042r.1

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Cleft Palate Craniofac J        ISSN: 1055-6656


  6 in total

1.  Relapse after Le Fort I surgery in oral cleft patients: a 2-year follow-up using digitized and 3D models.

Authors:  Willian Saranholi da Silva; Ana Lúcia Pompéia Fraga de Almeida; Maria Giulia Rezende Pucciarelli; Karin Hermana Neppelenbroek; Juliana Dreyer da Silva de Menezes; Renato Yassutaka Faria Yaedú; Thais Marchini Oliveira; Flavia M R N Cintra; Simone Soares
Journal:  Odontology       Date:  2018-03-01       Impact factor: 2.634

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 distraction osteogenesis at Le Fort-I level induces bone apposition at infraorbital rim.

Authors:  Vidya Rattan; Ashok Kumar Jena; Satinder Pal Singh; Ashok Kumar Utreja
Journal:  Clin Oral Investig       Date:  2013-11-26       Impact factor: 3.573

4.  Three-Dimensional Outcome Assessments of Surgical Correction in Cleft and Noncleft Patients with Class III Skeletal Relation: A Case-Control Study.

Authors:  Te-Ju Wu; Cheng-Chun Wu; Chi-Yu Tsai; Yi-Hao Lee; Yu-Jen Chang; Shiu-Shiung Lin; Jui-Pin Lai
Journal:  Biomed Res Int       Date:  2021-08-13       Impact factor: 3.411

5.  The Predictability of the Surgical Outcomes of Class III Patients in the Transverse Dimension-A Study of Three-Dimensional Assessment.

Authors:  U-Kei Lai; Cheng-Chun Wu; Yu-Jen Chang; Shiu-Shiung Lin; Jui-Pin Lai; Te-Ju Wu
Journal:  J Pers Med       Date:  2022-07-15

6.  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
  6 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.