Abstract
Background: Distraction Osteogenesis is popular for long bones. And nowadays it has found its role in facial bone deficiency treatments. Purpose: We used our special designed Distractor for advancement of Maxillary deficiencies in cleft lip and palate patients. The purpose of this paper is to compare the treatment of hypoplastic, posteriorly retruded maxillary of cleft palate patients using distraction osteogenesis vs. Le fort I orthognathic surgery for length of advancement, stabil- ity and relapse, growth after distraction and soft tissue expansion and soft tissue profile changes. Meterial & Methods: In group A only Le fort I and surgical maxillary advancement sometimes with bone graft were done. In group B we used our special Distractor for Distraction Osteogenesis and advancement of the Maxillary bone. Demographic data, length of retrusion of maxilla, time length of treatment, length of advancement and relapse, SNA and SNB angles were measured and in- cluded in the study. The results were compared in each group before and after advancement and between both groups. The rate of distraction was 0.5 mm twice per day to achieve normal occlu- sion with 2 mm overcorrection more than calculated measures. The devices removed after 10 weeks as latency period. Results: The SNA increased at the end of distraction (p 10 mm) we recommend Distraction Osteogenesis, and it preferred to start it soon in younger ages.
Highlights
Distraction Osteogenesis is popular for long bones
The use of new surgical method such as distraction osteogenesis to generate bone is becoming the preferred method for treatment of a variety of craniofacial and endochondral bone deficits
Distraction osteogenesis is the generation of viable bone by the gradual separation of osteotomized bone edges
Summary
Distraction Osteogenesis is popular for long bones. Nowadays it has found its role in facial bone deficiency treatments. Purpose: We used our special designed Distractor for advancement of Maxillary deficiencies in cleft lip and palate patients. The purpose of this paper is to compare the treatment of hypoplastic, posteriorly retruded maxillary of cleft palate patients using distraction osteogenesis vs Le fort I orthognathic surgery for length of advancement, stability and relapse, growth after distraction and soft tissue expansion and soft tissue profile changes. In group B we used our special Distractor for Distraction Osteogenesis and advancement of the Maxillary bone. Results: The SNA increased at the end of distraction (p < 0.001), with no significant relapse indicating stability at 1 year after treatment. Discussion: For the deformities and retrusions less than 7 - 8 mm, the Orthognatic surgery is the treatment of choice, for more retrusions (>10 mm) we recommend Distraction Osteogenesis, and it preferred to start it soon in younger ages
Sign-in/Register to view highlights & summary 
Published Version (
Free)
Talk to us
Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have
Schedule a call