Joël Ferri1, Matthias Schlund1, Sandrine Touzet-Roumazeille2, James J Sciote3, Romain Nicot1. 1. Oral and Maxillofacial Department, Univ. Lille, CHU Lille, INSERM U 1008, Controlled Drug Delivery Systems and Biomaterials, Lille, France. 2. Oral and Maxillofacial Department, University Lille, CHU Lille, Lille, France. 3. Kornberg School of Dentistry, Temple University, Philadelphia, PA.
Abstract
INTRODUCTION: Cranio-Maxillofacial Dysplasias (CMD), including Craniofacial Microsomias, syndromes (such as Treacher Collins or Williams) and isolated Condylo-Mandibulo-Dysplasia, is a controversial subject with treatments as diverse as diagnostic classifications. The authors present here a retrospective study of 85 patients, with congenital condyle dysplasia arising from these 3 main types of CMD, treated with different techniques that aimed to normalize the facial skeleton and occlusion. METHODS: The authors studied retrospectively 85 patients, aged from 3 to 53 years old, affected by different types of CMD. Treatment options included: costochondral grafts, orthognathic surgeries, distraction osteogenesis procedures, orthodontic and dentofacial orthopedic treatments, and soft tissues surgeries. Outcomes were evaluated by the surgical team. RESULTS: Seventeen patients were treated with costochondral grafting, 14 with distraction osteogenesis, 17 with orthodontic and dentofacial orthopedic, and 45 with orthognathic surgery. The authors did not perform any nerve grafting or temporomandibular joints prosthesis placement. Fifty-one patients presented an excellent result, 10 a good result, 9 a poor result, 2 a bad result, and 14 an unknown result. DISCUSSION: Several different treatments of CMD can be proposed. The authors think that major defect in children should undergo costochondral grafting because of its growth potential while in case of minor defect, orthopedic treatment should be tried in the first place. Distraction osteogenesis should be reserved for cases with poor response after orthopedic treatment or growth insufficiency with costochondral grafting. Orthognathic surgery is often necessary at the end of the growth period to obtain an excellent result. Temporomandibular joints prosthesis should be reserved for extreme cases.
INTRODUCTION: Cranio-Maxillofacial Dysplasias (CMD), including Craniofacial Microsomias, syndromes (such as Treacher Collins or Williams) and isolated Condylo-Mandibulo-Dysplasia, is a controversial subject with treatments as diverse as diagnostic classifications. The authors present here a retrospective study of 85 patients, with congenital condyle dysplasia arising from these 3 main types of CMD, treated with different techniques that aimed to normalize the facial skeleton and occlusion. METHODS: The authors studied retrospectively 85 patients, aged from 3 to 53 years old, affected by different types of CMD. Treatment options included: costochondral grafts, orthognathic surgeries, distraction osteogenesis procedures, orthodontic and dentofacial orthopedic treatments, and soft tissues surgeries. Outcomes were evaluated by the surgical team. RESULTS: Seventeen patients were treated with costochondral grafting, 14 with distraction osteogenesis, 17 with orthodontic and dentofacial orthopedic, and 45 with orthognathic surgery. The authors did not perform any nerve grafting or temporomandibular joints prosthesis placement. Fifty-one patients presented an excellent result, 10 a good result, 9 a poor result, 2 a bad result, and 14 an unknown result. DISCUSSION: Several different treatments of CMD can be proposed. The authors think that major defect in children should undergo costochondral grafting because of its growth potential while in case of minor defect, orthopedic treatment should be tried in the first place. Distraction osteogenesis should be reserved for cases with poor response after orthopedic treatment or growth insufficiency with costochondral grafting. Orthognathic surgery is often necessary at the end of the growth period to obtain an excellent result. Temporomandibular joints prosthesis should be reserved for extreme cases.
Authors: Alistair R M Cobb; Maarten J Koudstaal; Neil W Bulstrode; Timothy W Lloyd; David J Dunaway Journal: Br J Oral Maxillofac Surg Date: 2012-10-01 Impact factor: 1.651
Authors: Arman T Serebrakian; Michael S Golinko; Michael Alperovich; Christopher M Runyan; David A Staffenberg Journal: J Craniofac Surg Date: 2016-10 Impact factor: 1.046