Literature DB >> 9477833

Vector of device placement and trajectory of mandibular distraction.

B H Grayson1, S McCormick, P E Santiago, J G McCarthy.   

Abstract

The role of preoperative planning, the geometric changes, and the long-term effects of mandibular distraction have not been previously reported. This study included 10 patients who underwent unilateral (5 patients) or bilateral (5 patients) mandibular distraction. Preoperative, postdistraction, and yearly radiographs (panoramic, posteroanterior, and lateral cephalograms) were reviewed. Postdistraction follow-up ranged from 12 to 70 months. Postdistraction, the mandibles showed evidence of anticipated growth without relapse. This growth rate was variable and dependent on the genetic program of the native bone. Previously reported improvement in temporomandibular joint morphology was maintained in the long term. The resulting shape of the neomandible was most influenced by the vector of placement of the distraction device. When placed vertically, ramal elongation was observed. When placed horizontally, anterior projection of the mandibular body occurred. When placed obliquely, ramal and body elongation occurred with preservation of the gonial angle. After 2 to 5 years of follow-up, continued growth of the neomandible was observed.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  1997        PMID: 9477833     DOI: 10.1097/00001665-199711000-00009

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


  8 in total

1.  [Evaluation of potential damage to the regenerate during callus molding after mandibular distraction osteogenesis. Experimental study using an animal model].

Authors:  C Kunz; N Adolphs; P Buescher; B Hammer; B Rahn
Journal:  Mund Kiefer Gesichtschir       Date:  2005-05

2.  Immediate Reconstruction of Large Full-Thickness Segmental Anterior Maxillary Defect with Bone Transport.

Authors:  Alberto Rocha Pereira; Nuno Montezuma; Luis Oliveira; Miguel Magalhães; José Rosa
Journal:  Craniomaxillofac Trauma Reconstr       Date:  2016-09-15

3.  Craniofacial microsomia.

Authors:  Craig B Birgfeld; Carrie Heike
Journal:  Semin Plast Surg       Date:  2012-05       Impact factor: 2.314

Review 4.  Facial asymmetry revisited: Part II-Conceptualizing the management.

Authors:  Dhirendra Srivastava; Harpreet Singh; Sonal Mishra; Poonam Sharma; Pranav Kapoor; Lokesh Chandra
Journal:  J Oral Biol Craniofac Res       Date:  2017-09-28

5.  A systematic review on the outcome of distraction osteogenesis in TMJ ankylosis.

Authors:  Ankita Chugh; Divya Mehrotra; Pradeep K Yadav
Journal:  J Oral Biol Craniofac Res       Date:  2021-07-16

6.  Cephalometric evaluation of the craniofacial complex in patients treated with an intraoral distraction osteogenesis device: a long-term study.

Authors:  Angela Chow; Hao-Fu Lee; Mary Trahar; Henry Kawamoto; Heleni Vastardis; Kang Ting
Journal:  Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop       Date:  2008-12       Impact factor: 2.650

7.  Biomechanics and orthodontic treatment protocol in maxillofacial distraction osteogenesis.

Authors:  Sandhya Maheshwari; Sanjeev K Verma; Mohd Tariq; K C Prabhat; Shailendra Kumar
Journal:  Natl J Maxillofac Surg       Date:  2011-07

8.  Piezosurgery: A new and safe technique for distraction osteogenesis in Pierre Robin sequence review of the literature and case report.

Authors:  Manlio Galié; Valentina Candotto; Giovanni Elia; Luigi C Clauser
Journal:  Int J Surg Case Rep       Date:  2014-12-05
  8 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.