A Nadtochiy1. 1. Department of Children's Maxillo-Facial Surgery, Central Scientific-Research Institute of Stomatology, Moscow, Russia ; Department of Maxillo-Facial Surgery, St. Vladimir Children's Hospital, Moscow, Russia.
Abstract
PURPOSE: To determine whether distraction-induced regeneration (DR) can be optimized based on consecutive ultrasound findings during the course of compression-distraction osteosynthesis (CDO). MATERIALS AND METHODS: Sixty-nine children ranging in age from 2 weeks to 15 years with congenital (37 patients) or acquired (32 patients) microgenia were treated with CDO. Radiological diagnostic studies included orthopantomography (OPG) and ultrasonography (US). The patients were divided into two groups: in group I a standard distraction rate (SDR) (1 mm/day) was used (33 patients, 47.8%); in group II (36 patients, 52.2%) individual distraction rates (IDR) were used based on US findings. RESULTS: DR was classified as normotrophic, hypertrophic, or hypotrophic based on US findings. In group I, 11 (33.3%) of the patients presented normotrophic DR, 8 (24.2%) had hypertrophic DR, and in 14 (42.4%), the DR was hypotrophic. In group II, all patients presented normotrophic DR at the end of the treatment. CONCLUSION: US offers a unique opportunity to study DR development, and the results can be used to actively manage and optimize the osteogenesis process during mandibular CDO in children.
PURPOSE: To determine whether distraction-induced regeneration (DR) can be optimized based on consecutive ultrasound findings during the course of compression-distraction osteosynthesis (CDO). MATERIALS AND METHODS: Sixty-nine children ranging in age from 2 weeks to 15 years with congenital (37 patients) or acquired (32 patients) microgenia were treated with CDO. Radiological diagnostic studies included orthopantomography (OPG) and ultrasonography (US). The patients were divided into two groups: in group I a standard distraction rate (SDR) (1 mm/day) was used (33 patients, 47.8%); in group II (36 patients, 52.2%) individual distraction rates (IDR) were used based on US findings. RESULTS: DR was classified as normotrophic, hypertrophic, or hypotrophic based on US findings. In group I, 11 (33.3%) of the patients presented normotrophic DR, 8 (24.2%) had hypertrophic DR, and in 14 (42.4%), the DR was hypotrophic. In group II, all patients presented normotrophic DR at the end of the treatment. CONCLUSION: US offers a unique opportunity to study DR development, and the results can be used to actively manage and optimize the osteogenesis process during mandibular CDO in children.
Entities:
Keywords:
Compression–distraction osteosynthesis; Head and neck ultrasonography; Mandibular hypoplasia; Maxillo-facial surgery; Musculo-skeletal ultrasonography