OBJECTIVE: Loading of temporomandibular tissues during mandibular distraction may cause changes in condylar growth and cartilage thickness. This study examines the effects of distraction on the condyle in a large animal model by explicitly measuring growth and in vivo loading. DESIGN: Unilateral mandibular distraction was carried out on 20 growing minipigs divided into three groups. One group underwent distraction but not consolidation, whereas the other two groups were allowed a period of consolidation of either 1 or 2 weeks. Animals received fluorochrome and 5-bromo-2'-deoxyuridine (BrdU) labelling and masticatory strain was measured from the condylar neck. Condylar strain was also recorded in an age-matched sample of eight animals that received no distraction surgery. Immunohistochemical procedures were used to identify dividing prechondroblasts and histological analysis was used to measure mineral apposition rate, count dividing cells, and measure the thickness of condylar cartilage. RESULTS: Strain magnitude, particularly compressive strain, was much larger on the non-distraction side compared to the distraction side condyle. Compared to normal loading levels, the distraction side condyle was underloaded whereas the condyle on the intact side was overloaded. Mineral apposition and cartilage thickness were greater on the distraction side condyle compared to the opposite side. Differences between the sides were most pronounced in the group with no consolidation and became progressively reduced with consolidation time. CONCLUSIONS: Increased mineralisation and cartilage thickness on the distraction side condyle are associated with reduced, not increased loading, perhaps because of disruption of the distraction side masseter muscle.
OBJECTIVE: Loading of temporomandibular tissues during mandibular distraction may cause changes in condylar growth and cartilage thickness. This study examines the effects of distraction on the condyle in a large animal model by explicitly measuring growth and in vivo loading. DESIGN: Unilateral mandibular distraction was carried out on 20 growing minipigs divided into three groups. One group underwent distraction but not consolidation, whereas the other two groups were allowed a period of consolidation of either 1 or 2 weeks. Animals received fluorochrome and 5-bromo-2'-deoxyuridine (BrdU) labelling and masticatory strain was measured from the condylar neck. Condylar strain was also recorded in an age-matched sample of eight animals that received no distraction surgery. Immunohistochemical procedures were used to identify dividing prechondroblasts and histological analysis was used to measure mineral apposition rate, count dividing cells, and measure the thickness of condylar cartilage. RESULTS: Strain magnitude, particularly compressive strain, was much larger on the non-distraction side compared to the distraction side condyle. Compared to normal loading levels, the distraction side condyle was underloaded whereas the condyle on the intact side was overloaded. Mineral apposition and cartilage thickness were greater on the distraction side condyle compared to the opposite side. Differences between the sides were most pronounced in the group with no consolidation and became progressively reduced with consolidation time. CONCLUSIONS: Increased mineralisation and cartilage thickness on the distraction side condyle are associated with reduced, not increased loading, perhaps because of disruption of the distraction side masseter muscle.
Authors: Eduardo Franzotti Sant'Anna; David F Gomez; Dale R Sumner; James M Williams; Alvaro A Figueroa; Srdjan A Ostric; Spero Theodoru; John W Polley Journal: J Craniofac Surg Date: 2006-05 Impact factor: 1.046
Authors: Eduardo F Sant'Anna; David F Gomez; John W Polley; Rick D Sumner; James M Williams; Alvaro A Figueroa; Ana Maria Bolognese Journal: J Craniofac Surg Date: 2007-01 Impact factor: 1.046
Authors: Katherine L Rafferty; Zongyang Sun; Mark A Egbert; Emily E Baird; Susan W Herring Journal: J Oral Maxillofac Surg Date: 2006-04 Impact factor: 1.895
Authors: Petra Thurmüller; Maria J Troulis; Andrew Rosenberg; Sung-Kiang Chuang; Leonard B Kaban Journal: J Oral Maxillofac Surg Date: 2006-02 Impact factor: 1.895
Authors: T Sobue; W-C Yeh; A Chhibber; A Utreja; V Diaz-Doran; D Adams; Z Kalajzic; J Chen; S Wadhwa Journal: J Dent Res Date: 2011-01-19 Impact factor: 6.116
Authors: Jessica M Rosin; Wenjie Li; Liza L Cox; Sara M Rolfe; Victor Latorre; Jennifer A Akiyama; Axel Visel; Takashi Kuramoto; Nicoletta Bobola; Eric E Turner; Timothy C Cox Journal: Development Date: 2016-06-10 Impact factor: 6.868
Authors: Beatriz F Betti; Vincent Everts; Johannes C F Ket; Hessam Tabeian; Astrid D Bakker; Geerling E Langenbach; Frank Lobbezoo Journal: Clin Oral Investig Date: 2017-08-01 Impact factor: 3.573