Literature DB >> 20299247

Cleft maxillary distraction versus orthognathic surgery--which one is more stable in 5 years?

Hannah Daile P Chua1, Margareta Bendeus Hägg, Lim Kwong Cheung.   

Abstract

OBJECTIVE: The objective of this study was to compare the long-term stability of distraction osteogenesis (DO) and conventional orthognathic surgery (CO) in patients with cleft lip and palate (CLP). STUDY
DESIGN: CLP patients requiring maxillary advancement of 4 to 10 mm were randomized and assigned to either CO or DO. In the CO group, the maxilla was fully mobilized to the preplanned position and fixed using titanium miniplates. In the DO group, the maxilla was mobilized to a limited extent and distractors were fixed on each side of the maxilla. Serial lateral cephalographs were taken for the assessment of stability at different postoperative periods up to 5 years.
RESULTS: In the CO group, the maxilla relapsed backward and upward, whereas in the DO group, it advanced more forward and downward over 5 years.
CONCLUSIONS: Distraction of the cleft maxilla can achieve better long-term skeletal stability in maintaining its advanced position than CO. Copyright 2010 Mosby, Inc. All rights reserved.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2010        PMID: 20299247     DOI: 10.1016/j.tripleo.2009.10.056

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Oral Surg Oral Med Oral Pathol Oral Radiol Endod        ISSN: 1079-2104


  14 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

2.  LeFort I Osteotomy.

Authors:  Edward P Buchanan; Charles H Hyman
Journal:  Semin Plast Surg       Date:  2013-08       Impact factor: 2.314

3.  Maxillary distraction osteogenesis versus orthognathic surgery for cleft lip and palate patients.

Authors:  Dimitrios Kloukos; Piotr Fudalej; Patrick Sequeira-Byron; Christos Katsaros
Journal:  Cochrane Database Syst Rev       Date:  2018-08-10

4.  Cephalometric Analysis of Hard and Soft Tissue Changes Following Anterior Maxillary Osteotomy Distraction in Cleft Maxillary Hypoplasia.

Authors:  Adarsh Lingeshbabu Pawar; Jayanth Basavapattana Shivasubramanya; Shanavas Kolothu Parambil; Anand Shivamoga Raju; Abhitosh Debata
Journal:  J Maxillofac Oral Surg       Date:  2020-09-01

5.  Soft Tissue Changes in Cleft Lip and Palate Patients: Anterior Maxillary Distraction versus Conventional Le-Fort I Osteotomy.

Authors:  Eldho Markose; Joby Paulose; Eldho T Paul
Journal:  J Maxillofac Oral Surg       Date:  2013-01-18

6.  Photometric Evaluation of Soft Tissue Changes in CLP Patients: Le Fort I Advancement Osteotomy (ALO) Versus Anterior Maxillary Distraction (AMD).

Authors:  Joby Paulose; Eldho Markose
Journal:  J Maxillofac Oral Surg       Date:  2013-08-30

Review 7.  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

Review 8.  Simultaneous options for cleft secondary deformities.

Authors:  Domenico Scopelliti; Flavia Maria Graziana Fatone; Orlando Cipriani; Piero Papi
Journal:  Ann Maxillofac Surg       Date:  2013-07

9.  Protocols in cleft lip and palate treatment: systematic review.

Authors:  Pedro Ribeiro Soares de Ladeira; Nivaldo Alonso
Journal:  Plast Surg Int       Date:  2012-11-01

10.  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
View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.