Search

There is little anteroposterior growth of the midface in patients with syndromic craniosynostosis who are followed up over time without intervention. A Le Fort III with distraction osteogenesis can be done to correct this. This is a controlled way in which to achieve appreciable stable advancement of the midface without the need for bone grafting, but the vector of the movement is not always predictable. The purpose of this study was to evaluate the 3-dimensional effect of Le Fort III distraction osteogenesis with an external frame. Ten patients (aged 7-19 years) who had the procedure were included in the study. The le Fort III procedure and the placement of the external frame were followed by an activation period and then a 3-month retention period. Computed tomographic (CT) images taken before and after operation were converted and loaded into 3-dimensional image rendering software and compared with the aid of a paired sample t test and a colour-coded qualitative analysis. Comparison of the CT data before and after distraction indicated that the amount of midface advancement was significant. Le Fort III distraction osteogenesis is an effective way to advance the midface. However, the movement during osteogenesis is not always exactly in the intended direction, and a secondary operation is often necessary. Three-dimensional evaluation over a longer period of time is necessary., (Copyright © 2015 The British Association of Oral and Maxillofacial Surgeons. Published by Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.)

This study aimed to assess the effects of bone-borne and tooth-borne surgically assisted rapid maxillary expansion on the volumes of the nose and nasal airway 2 yr after maxillary expansion. This prospective cohort study included 32 patients with transverse maxillary hypoplasia. Expansion was performed with a tooth-borne distractor (Hyrax) in 19 patients and with a bone-borne distractor [transpalatal distractor (TPD)] in the remaining 13. Cone beam computed tomography scans and three-dimensional (3D) photographs of the face were acquired before treatment and 22 ± 7 months later, and were used to evaluate the volumes of the nose and nasal airway. Nasal volume increased by 1.01 ± 1.6% in the Hyrax group and by 2.39 ± 2.4% in the TPD group. Nasal airway volume increased by 9.7 ± 5.6% in the Hyrax group and by 12.9 ± 12.7% in the TPD group. Changes in the nasal volume and in the nasal airway volume between the pre- and post-treatment measurements were statistically significant, whereas differences between the treatment groups were not; 22 months after surgically assisted rapid maxillary expansion, the increases in the nasal volume and in the nasal airway volume were comparable between tooth-borne and bone-borne devices., (© 2013 Eur J Oral Sci.)

Aim: To three-dimensionally (3D) assess the long-term effects of tooth-borne and bone-borne surgically assisted rapid maxillary expansion (SARME)., Subjects and Methods: This prospective cohort study comprised 45 consecutive skeletally mature non-syndromic patients with transverse maxillary hypoplasia. In 28 patients, a tooth-borne distractor (Hyrax) was used for expansion, whereas in the remaining 17 a bone-borne distractor (transpalatal distractor, TPD) was used. Cone beam computed tomography (CBCT) scans were performed before treatment (T0) and 22 months later, after fixed appliance treatment (T1). 3D models were constructed from CBCT data and superimposed using voxel-based matching. Distance maps between the superimposed models were computed to evaluate the amount of skeletal changes., Results: The distance maps of the superimposed models showed positive distances on the right and left posterior alveolar segments of the maxilla indicating lateral expansion. The anterior maxillary region showed negative distances or posterior displacement and remodelling of the anterior alveolar region. There was no statistically significant difference between TPD and Hyrax for the three alveolar segments (p values ranged 0.63-0.81)., Conclusion: Bone-borne and tooth-borne SARME were found to produce comparable results at the end of fixed appliance treatment regarding skeletal changes., (Copyright © 2012 European Association for Cranio-Maxillo-Facial Surgery. Published by Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.)

Introduction: A systematic literature review was conducted to find out if bone-borne maxillary expansion with corticotomies is an effective and secure orthodontic/orthopaedic treatment modality, eliminating orthodontic and periodontal side effects of tooth-borne maxillary expansion with corticotomies., Material and Methods: Randomized controlled trials (RCT), controlled clinical trials (CCT) and case series with a sample size >or=5 were electronically searched in PubMED, MEDLINE, EMBASE Excerpta Medica, CINAHL, Biological Abstracts and CENTRAL till June 2008. Data were extracted by 2 observers., Results: Ten studies fulfilled the inclusion criteria, of which 9 were prospective and 1 was a retrospective case series., Conclusion: No RCT's or CCT's were published on bone-borne surgically assisted rapid maxillary expansion (SARME). For expected advantages compared to tooth-borne SARME, only weak evidence was found for less buccal tipping of the teeth used as anchor teeth in tooth-borne expansion. The heterogeneity of the retrieved publications and the wide variety of outcome variables posed serious restrictions on the review of the literature in a quantitative systematic manner. There is a need for well designed clinical trials research on the effects of tooth-borne and bone-borne SARME.

Aim of the study was to get more insight into the opinion of European surgeons and orthodontists on the use of distraction osteogenesis (DO) for patients with different diagnoses and treatment protocols. A web based survey was set up, showing records of four patients with different conditions: hemifacial microsomia (case 1), bilateral mandibular deficiency (case 2), cleft lip and palate (case 3) and Crouzon syndrome (case 4). Respondents from 181 Eurocleft centres were asked to fill out a questionnaire for each patient. Most of the respondents considered case 1 (80%), case 3 (81%) and case 4 (86%) suitable for DO, while only 31% were considering case 2 for DO. There was lack of consensus among the respondents about many aspects of DO. Out of six different treatment parameters, an acceptable degree of agreement was only seen in two: a latency period of 3-7 days and a distraction rate of 1mm per day. Furthermore, there was noticeable disagreement on the ideal age for treatment, surgical technique, distraction device, and retention period. Our results showed that there is a wide variety in treatment approaches for craniofacial anomalies in Europe. There is disagreement on essential steps in the distraction procedures.