Long-term results in maxillary deficiency using intraoral devices

Technion - Israel Institute of Technology, H̱efa, Haifa, Israel
International Journal of Oral and Maxillofacial Surgery (Impact Factor: 1.57). 08/2005; 34(5):473-9. DOI: 10.1016/j.ijom.2005.01.004
Source: PubMed


Cleft lip and palate patients often present maxillary retrusion and class III malocclusion after cleft repair. Maxillary distraction is a technique that can provide simultaneous skeletal advancement and expansion of soft tissue. Twelve patients with cleft maxillary deficiency due to cleft lip and palate were treated by Le Fort I osteotomy and two intraoral distraction devices that were activated after 4 days of latency period, 1mm per day on both sides. Long-term clinical and cephalometric evaluation of one and two years demonstrate stable results concerning the skeletal, dental and soft tissue relations. In this paper we discuss the advantages of distraction osteogenesis as a method for treatment of maxillary deficiency in cleft patients in terms of stability and relapse. The indications for maxillary distraction: (1) Moderate and severe retrusion that needs large advancement as in cleft lip and palate patients. (2) Forward and downward lengthening of the maxilla with no need for intermediate bone graft. (3) Growing patients. In conclusion, maxillary distraction in moderate or severe retrusion, as in cleft patients offers marked maxillary advancement with long-term stability.

5 Reads
  • Source
    • "The indications of distraction osteogenesis in craniomaxillofacial field are increasing in the last 2 decades mainly in severe cases of hypoplastic bones and in the treatment of maxillofacial asymmetry as seen in hemifacial microsomia1–3 or lengthening of severely hypoplastic mandible as seen in Pierre Robin or Treacher Collins syndromes, resulting in obstructive sleep apnea.4,5 Other indications of distraction are the treatment of hypoplastic maxilla in cleft palate patients.4,6,7 "
    [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: Gradual bone lengthening using distraction osteogenesis principles is the gold standard for the treatment of hypoplastic facial bones. However, the long treatment time is a major disadvantage of the lengthening procedures. The aim of this study is to review the current literature and summarize the cellular and molecular events occurring during membranous craniofacial distraction osteogenesis. Mechanical stimulation by distraction induces biological responses of skeletal regeneration that is accomplished by a cascade of biological processes that may include differentiation of pluripotential tissue, angiogenesis, osteogenesis, mineralization, and remodeling. There are complex interactions between bone-forming osteoblasts and other cells present within the bone microenvironment, particularly vascular endothelial cells that may be pivotal members of a complex interactive communication network in bone. Studies have implicated number of cytokines that are intimately involved in the regulation of bone synthesis and turnover. The gene regulation of numerous cytokines (transforming growth factor-β, bone morphogenetic proteins, insulin-like growth factor-1, and fibroblast growth factor-2) and extracellular matrix proteins (osteonectin, osteopontin) during distraction osteogenesis has been best characterized and discussed. Understanding the biomolecular mechanisms that mediate membranous distraction osteogenesis may guide the development of targeted strategies designed to improve distraction osteogenesis and accelerate bone regeneration that may lead to shorten the treatment duration.
    Full-text · Article · Jan 2014
  • Source
    • "The treatment options for this deformity include conventional orthognathic surgery and internal or external distraction osteogenesis (DO) (Cohen et al., 1997; Polley and Figueroa, 1997; Karakasis and Hadjipetrou, 2004; Gedrange et al., 2006; Nada et al., 2010). Maxillary DO in CLP has been proven to have a good long-term stability (Figueroa et al., 2004; Rachmiel et al., 2005; Cho and Kyung, 2006; Aksu et al., 2010; Chua et al., 2010; Gürsoy et al., 2010; Chen et al., 2011), but it must be used judiciously for the right indications, so that its benefits can compensate its disadvantages (Cheung et al., 2006; Precious, 2007; Chua et al., 2012). "
    [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: PURPOSE: The objective was to analyze the effects of growth on the long-term result of maxillary distraction osteogenesis (DO) in cleft lip and palate (CLP). PATIENTS AND METHODS: Retrospective study of 24 CLP cases with long-term follow-up operated for maxillary DO using the Polley and Figueroa technique: 10 patients were distracted during growth, while 14 patients were operated after their growth spurt. Preoperative (T0), 6-12 months postoperative (T1), and ≥4 years postoperative (T2) cephalometric radiographs were evaluated. A classical cephalometric analysis was used to assess the treatment stability, and a Procrustes superimposition method was performed to assess local changes in the maxilla and the mandible. RESULTS: At T0, the mean age was of 11.9 ± 1.4 years for growing patient, and 17.9 ± 3.5 years for patient treated after their growth spurt (P < 0.001). Between T0 and T1, a greater increase of the SNA was shown in growing patients (P = 0.036), but the relapse was more important between T1 and T2, with a significant decrease of the SNA (P = 0.002) and ANB (P = 0.032) compared to the patients treated after their growth spurt. Although not significant, growing patients showed greater rotations of their palatal plane and mandibular plane. CONCLUSIONS: Maxillary DO in CLP does not correct the growth deficit inherent to the pathology. Overcorrection of at least 20% is advised during growth.
    Full-text · Article · Mar 2013 · Journal of cranio-maxillo-facial surgery: official publication of the European Association for Cranio-Maxillo-Facial Surgery
  • Source
    • "Distraction osteogenesis has become a widely used treatment of maxillary hypoplasia in CLP-patients because of the reports of better stability and the possibility for larger advancements [15,16]. However, it is a more complicated treatment because of the period with active distraction, the obligate need for good cooperation and the long consolidation phase with the patient still wearing the appliance. "
    [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: To compare cleft lip and palate patients' satisfaction with aesthetics and functional parameters after conventional advancement of the maxilla or by the use of distraction osteogenesis. Case series observational study. Group of distraction osteogenesis (DO) consisted of 15 patients treated with distraction osteogenesis while group conventional (CONV) included 10 patients treated with traditional advancement of the maxilla. Patients were asked to fill out a questionnaire about their subjective evaluation of satisfaction with facial aesthetics and functional parameters on a continuous visual analog-scale (VAS) when the treatment was finished. The total response rate was 76%. Preoperatively the two groups did not differ significantly according to group characteristics. At follow-up both groups were satisfied with aesthetics and functional parameters. The DO group was less satisfied with the duration of the treatment than the CONV group. There were no statistically significant differences among the groups regarding functional parameters or facial aesthetics. Cleft lip and palate patients experienced a high level of satisfaction with functional parameters and aesthetics as a result of surgical maxillary advancement. The patients treated with distraction osteogenesis were less satisfied with the duration of the treatment. Further studies are needed.
    Full-text · Article · Jul 2012
Show more