OBJECTIVE: To assess the utility of distraction osteogenesis (DO) when applied to closure of a hard palate cleft in dogs. METHODS: A midline hard palate cleft was created in 10 mature dogs. Two were controls and had no distraction; the other 8 dogs underwent osteotomies with installation of customized DO devices to the hard palate. After a 10-day latency, distraction commenced at 1 mm/d. After a 14-day consolidation period, the device was removed and the mucosa closed. Each dog was injected with fluorochrome labels and serially killed at 2-week intervals. Bone healing was analyzed further with traditional histologic analysis and fluorochrome labeling. RESULTS: No serious complications occurred. Bone resorption and cleft widening occurred in both control dogs. Complete bone closure of the hard palate cleft was achieved with DO in 5 of 8 experimental dogs. Three experimental dogs had bone resorption and incomplete palatal closure. CONCLUSIONS: The application of DO techniques in closure of a hard palate cleft in a canine model is safe and well tolerated. Furthermore, in some cases, it proved effective in achieving bony closure of the cleft. Further investigation is warranted into innovative use of DO in treating children born with cleft palate.
OBJECTIVE: To assess the utility of distraction osteogenesis (DO) when applied to closure of a hard palate cleft in dogs. METHODS: A midline hard palate cleft was created in 10 mature dogs. Two were controls and had no distraction; the other 8 dogs underwent osteotomies with installation of customized DO devices to the hard palate. After a 10-day latency, distraction commenced at 1 mm/d. After a 14-day consolidation period, the device was removed and the mucosa closed. Each dog was injected with fluorochrome labels and serially killed at 2-week intervals. Bone healing was analyzed further with traditional histologic analysis and fluorochrome labeling. RESULTS: No serious complications occurred. Bone resorption and cleft widening occurred in both control dogs. Complete bone closure of the hard palate cleft was achieved with DO in 5 of 8 experimental dogs. Three experimental dogs had bone resorption and incomplete palatal closure. CONCLUSIONS: The application of DO techniques in closure of a hard palate cleft in a canine model is safe and well tolerated. Furthermore, in some cases, it proved effective in achieving bony closure of the cleft. Further investigation is warranted into innovative use of DO in treating children born with cleft palate.