Home > Journals > Minerva Stomatologica > Past Issues > Minerva Stomatologica 2018 June;67(3) > Minerva Stomatologica 2018 June;67(3):117-24

CURRENT ISSUE
 

JOURNAL TOOLS

eTOC
To subscribe PROMO
Submit an article
Recommend to your librarian
 

ARTICLE TOOLS

Publication history
Reprints
Permissions
Cite this article as

 

ORIGINAL ARTICLE   

Minerva Stomatologica 2018 June;67(3):117-24

DOI: 10.23736/S0026-4970.18.04121-3

Copyright © 2018 EDIZIONI MINERVA MEDICA

language: English

Tooth-borne distraction osteogenesis versus conventional Le Fort I in maxillary advancement of cleft lip and palate patients

Abdolreza JAMILIAN 1 , Rahman SHOWKATBAKHSH 2, Mohammad BEHNAZ 2, Alireza GHASSEMI 3, Zinat KAMALEE 4, Letizia PERILLO 5

1 Department of Orthodontics, Tehran Dental Branch, Craniomaxillofacial Research Center, Islamic Azad University, Tehran, Iran; 2 Department of Orthodontics, Dentofacial Deformities Research Center, Research Institute of Dental Sciences, School of Dentistry, Shahid Beheshti University of Medical Sciences, Tehran, Iran; 3 Department of Oral, Maxillofacial Plastic and Reconstructive Surgery, University Hospital, RWTH-Aachen, Germany; 4 National Nutrition and Food Technology Research Institute, Faculty of Nutrition Sciences and Food Technology, Shahid Beheshti University of Medical Sciences, Tehran, Iran; 5 Unit of Orthodontics, Multidisciplinary Department of Medical-Surgical and Dental Specialties, Università degli Studi della Campania Luigi Vanvitelli, Naples, Italy


PDF


BACKGROUND: Distraction osteogenesis (DO) is rapidly becoming a mainstream surgical technique for correction of maxillary deficiency. The aim of this study was to compare the effectiveness of a newly designed tooth-borne osteogenic distraction device with conventional Le Fort 1 osteotomy in maxillary advancement of cleft lip and palate patients.
METHODS: The DO group consisted of 10 subjects (7 males, 3 females) with a mean age of 21.2 (SD 4.2) years. In these patients, the newly designed distraction device which exerted force anteroposteriorly was cemented after mobilization of the maxilla. After a latency period of 7 days, the distractor was activated twice daily by a total amount of 0.5 mm per day. The activation was continued for 3 weeks. After an 8-week consolidation period, the distraction appliance was removed. Cephalograms of DO patients were obtained at the start of distraction and at the end of consolidation. The Le Fort 1 group consisted of 11 subjects (6 males, 5 females) with a mean age of 22.3 (SD 3.7) years. Pre and postsurgery lateral cephalograms were obtained. t-test and paired t-test were used to evaluate the data.
RESULTS: At the end of treatment, the SNA angle of Le Fort 1 patients increased by 5.5° (SD 2.3) (P<0.001) and the SNA angle of DO patients increased by 3.4° (SD 2) (P<0.001).
CONCLUSIONS: Current evidence suggests that both conventional Le Fort 1 and tooth-borne osteogenic distraction device can effectively advance the maxilla forward in patients with cleft lip.


KEY WORDS: Cleft palate - Osteogenesis, distraction - Osteotomy, Le Fort

top of page