Craniofacial Microsomia: Orthodontic Surgical Treatment of Growing Patients

Veas, Pamela Agurto; Zirpel, Loreto Castellón; Morovic, Carmen Gloria

doi:10.1097/scs.0000000000004821

Cited by 2 publications

(3 citation statements)

References 25 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…The management of severe alterations in this entity, that we would classify at our clinic as type IV craniofacial microsomia, is a critical issue and object of discussion among the different craniofacial centers. These diverse groups support different protocols that call either for the use of osseous grafts or free flaps in the reconstruction of the mandibular ramus and body, followed by distraction osteogenesis in the cases in which reconstruction has proven to be insufficient or when the free flap fails to grow, and for middle cases in growing patients, that may require one or two times this type of surgery to improve functional and aesthetic evolution of the face 3 …”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…It is currently considered to have multiple factors like Poswillo theory about disruption of the stapedial artery, association with chromosomal abnormalities like 22q11 and 14q 22.3 and environmental factors. Its incidence is high as 1 in every 5600 live births, particularly in males, usually occurring on the right side of the face, 2,3 However, there is a late publication that shows that there are no real differences between gender and laterality ( P < 0.00001 and P = 0.006, respectively) 4 . Bilateral occurrence is less frequent; found only in 5 to 30% of cases 5…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Complication After Mandibular Reconstruction With Fibula Free Flap in a Patient With Hemifacial Microsomia

Madrid

Prada

López

et al. 2021

Journal of Craniofacial Surgery

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Hemifacial microsomia is the second most frequent pathology in craniofacial malformations. Clinical findings are broad, mainly affecting the mandible. Several classifications of mandibular compromise exist that guide the best treatment option in each patient. The authors present a case of an unusual complication following fibular free flap mandibular reconstruction in a patient with hemifacial microsomia prada type IV, who presented with ankylosis at the skull base and simultaneous fibula pseudoarthrosis at the union with the residual mandible. These dual findings allowed the patient to have a functional mouth aperture, which give us time to let him grow and wait for final management. Treatment options and follow up are discussed, knowing that there is no literature to support any protocol with this patient, so we present his evolution.

show abstract

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

mentioning

confidence: 99%

Complication After Mandibular Reconstruction With Fibula Free Flap in a Patient With Hemifacial Microsomia

Madrid

Prada

López

et al. 2021

Journal of Craniofacial Surgery

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…In the literature, orthognathic surgery appears also to be one of the most frequently used procedures to treat malocclusion related to CMD. Many patients affected by CMD have had orthognathic surgery when the facial growth was finished 38,39 . It is also considered as one of the most stable procedures 40 .…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Temporomandibular Joint Dysplasia in Cranio-Maxillofacial Dysplasia: A Retrospective Study. Guideline Treatment Proposal

Ferri

Schlund

Touzet-Roumazeille

et al. 2020

Journal of Craniofacial Surgery

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Introduction: Cranio-Maxillofacial Dysplasias (CMD), including Craniofacial Microsomias, syndromes (such as Treacher Collins or Williams) and isolated Condylo-Mandibulo-Dysplasia, is a controversial subject with treatments as diverse as diagnostic classifications. The authors present here a retrospective study of 85 patients, with congenital condyle dysplasia arising from these 3 main types of CMD, treated with different techniques that aimed to normalize the facial skeleton and occlusion. Methods: The authors studied retrospectively 85 patients, aged from 3 to 53 years old, affected by different types of CMD. Treatment options included: costochondral grafts, orthognathic surgeries, distraction osteogenesis procedures, orthodontic and dentofacial orthopedic treatments, and soft tissues surgeries. Outcomes were evaluated by the surgical team. Results: Seventeen patients were treated with costochondral grafting, 14 with distraction osteogenesis, 17 with orthodontic and dentofacial orthopedic, and 45 with orthognathic surgery. The authors did not perform any nerve grafting or temporomandibular joints prosthesis placement. Fifty-one patients presented an excellent result, 10 a good result, 9 a poor result, 2 a bad result, and 14 an unknown result. Discussion: Several different treatments of CMD can be proposed. The authors think that major defect in children should undergo costochondral grafting because of its growth potential while in case of minor defect, orthopedic treatment should be tried in the first place. Distraction osteogenesis should be reserved for cases with poor response after orthopedic treatment or growth insufficiency with costochondral grafting. Orthognathic surgery is often necessary at the end of the growth period to obtain an excellent result. Temporomandibular joints prosthesis should be reserved for extreme cases.

show abstract

Craniofacial Microsomia: Orthodontic Surgical Treatment of Growing Patients

Cited by 2 publications

References 25 publications

Complication After Mandibular Reconstruction With Fibula Free Flap in a Patient With Hemifacial Microsomia

Complication After Mandibular Reconstruction With Fibula Free Flap in a Patient With Hemifacial Microsomia

Temporomandibular Joint Dysplasia in Cranio-Maxillofacial Dysplasia: A Retrospective Study. Guideline Treatment Proposal

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About