Literature DB >> 26594967

Bilateral Continuous Automated Distraction Osteogenesis: Proof of Principle.

Zachary S Peacock1, Brad J Tricomi, William C Faquin, John C Magill, Brian A Murphy, Leonard B Kaban, Maria J Troulis.   

Abstract

The purpose of this study was to demonstrate that automated, continuous, curvilinear distraction osteogenesis (DO) in a minipig model is effective when performed bilaterally, at rates up to 3 mm/day, to achieve clinically relevant lengthening. A Yucatan minipig in the mixed dentition phase underwent bilaterally, at a continuous DO at a rate of 2 mm/day at the center of rotation; 1.0 and 3.0 mm/day at the superior and inferior regions, respectively. The distraction period was 13 days with no latency period. Vector and rate of distraction were remotely monitored without radiographs, using the device sensor. After fixation and euthanasia, the mandible and digastric muscles were harvested. The ex vivo appearance, stability, and radiodensity of the regenerate were evaluated using a semiquantitative scale. Percent surface area (PSA) occupied by bone, fibrous tissue, cartilage, and hematoma were calculated using histomorphometrics. The effects of DO on the digastric muscles and mandibular condyles were assessed via microscopy, and degenerative changes were quantified. The animal was distracted to 21 mm and 24 mm on the right and left sides, respectively. Clinical appearance, stability, and radiodensity were scored as "3" bilaterally indicating osseous union. The total PSA occupied by bone (right = 75.53 ± 2.19%; left PSA = 73.11 ± 2.18%) approached that of an unoperated mandible (84.67 ± 0.86%). Digastric muscles and condyles showed negligible degenerative or abnormal histologic changes. This proof of principle study is the first report of osseous healing with no ill-effect on associated soft tissue and the mandibular condyle using bilateral, automated, continuous, and curvilinear DO at rates up to 3 mm/day. The model approximates potential human application of continuous automated distraction with a semiburied device.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2015        PMID: 26594967      PMCID: PMC4662050          DOI: 10.1097/SCS.0000000000001996

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  J Craniofac Surg        ISSN: 1049-2275            Impact factor:   1.046


  36 in total

1.  A new distraction device to compare continuous and discontinuous bone distraction in mini-pigs: a preliminary report.

Authors:  P Kessler; J Wiltfang; F W Neukam
Journal:  J Craniomaxillofac Surg       Date:  2000-02       Impact factor: 2.078

2.  Effects of latency and rate on bone formation in a porcine mandibular distraction model.

Authors:  M J Troulis; J Glowacki; D H Perrott; L B Kaban
Journal:  J Oral Maxillofac Surg       Date:  2000-05       Impact factor: 1.895

3.  Continuous and intermittent bone distraction using a microhydraulic cylinder: an experimental study in minipigs.

Authors:  J Wiltfang; P Kessler; H A Merten; F W Neukam
Journal:  Br J Oral Maxillofac Surg       Date:  2001-02       Impact factor: 1.651

4.  Complications of mandibular distraction osteogenesis.

Authors:  Maria J Troulis; Leonard B Kaban
Journal:  Oral Maxillofac Surg Clin North Am       Date:  2003-05       Impact factor: 2.802

5.  Range of curvilinear distraction devices required for treatment of mandibular deformities.

Authors:  Lutz Ritter; Krishna Yeshwant; Edward B Seldin; Leonard B Kaban; Jaime Gateno; Erwin Keeve; Ron Kikinis; Maria J Troulis
Journal:  J Oral Maxillofac Surg       Date:  2006-02       Impact factor: 1.895

6.  The principles of the Ilizarov method.

Authors:  G A Ilizarov
Journal:  Bull Hosp Jt Dis Orthop Inst       Date:  1988

7.  Proliferation of masseter myocytes after distraction osteogenesis of the porcine mandible.

Authors:  F J Castaño; M J Troulis; J Glowacki; L B Kaban; K E Yates
Journal:  J Oral Maxillofac Surg       Date:  2001-03       Impact factor: 1.895

8.  The tension-stress effect on the genesis and growth of tissues: Part II. The influence of the rate and frequency of distraction.

Authors:  G A Ilizarov
Journal:  Clin Orthop Relat Res       Date:  1989-02       Impact factor: 4.176

9.  A murine model of distraction osteogenesis.

Authors:  S Isefuku; C J Joyner; A H Simpson
Journal:  Bone       Date:  2000-11       Impact factor: 4.398

10.  Automating skeletal expansion: An implant for distraction osteogenesis of the mandible.

Authors:  John C Magill; Marten F Byl; Batya Goldwaser; Maria Papadaki; Roger Kromann; Brent Yates; Joseph R Morency; Leonard B Kaban; Maria J Troulis
Journal:  J Med Device       Date:  2009-03       Impact factor: 0.582

View more
  2 in total

1.  Cephalometric studies of the mandible, its masticatory muscles and vasculature of growing Göttingen Minipigs-A comparative anatomical study to refine experimental mandibular surgery.

Authors:  Giuliano Mario Corte; Hana Hünigen; Kenneth C Richardson; Stefan M Niehues; Johanna Plendl
Journal:  PLoS One       Date:  2019-04-25       Impact factor: 3.240

Review 2.  Review of automatic continuous distraction osteogenesis devices for mandibular reconstruction applications.

Authors:  Shahrokh Hatefi; Katayoun Hatefi; Francis Le Roux; Javad Alizargar; Zeinolabedin Behdadipour; Yimesker Yihun; Khaled Abou-El-Hossein
Journal:  Biomed Eng Online       Date:  2020-04-01       Impact factor: 2.819

  2 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.