Distraction osteogenesis of the mandible using a submerged intraoral device: A report of three cases

Stucki-McCormick, Suzanne U.; Mizrahi, Ronald; Fox, Robert M.; Romo, Thomas

doi:10.1016/s0278-2391(99)90239-2

Cited by 20 publications

(8 citation statements)

References 15 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…Verschiedene Distraktionssysteme wurden entwickelt, um die Knochenverlagerungen zu optimieren [3,4,11,12,17,24,26,27]. Insbesondere die technisch schwierigen Verlagerungen bei Kraniosynostosen sind mittels DO heutzutage besser behandelbar [1,16] [2,9,25], das eine Evaluierung in der dritten Dimension erlaubt.…”

Section: Methodsunclassified

“…This technique was introduced by McCarthy et al [19] in maxillofacial surgery for the treatment of various mandibular dysplasias. Various distraction systems were developed to optimize bone transposition [3,4,11,12,17,24,26,27]. Technically difficult transpositions involving craniosynostosis in particular can be treated much more successfully nowadays by means of DO [1,16].…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Potential and Limitations of Cephalometric Analysis of Maxillofacial Bone Movement in the Case of LeFort III-Distraction

et al. 2005

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

Section: Methodsunclassified

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Potential and Limitations of Cephalometric Analysis of Maxillofacial Bone Movement in the Case of LeFort III-Distraction

et al. 2005

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Der Vorteil der langsamen Distraktionsgeschwindigkeit liegt darin, dass dadurch die bedeckenden Weichgewebe expandieren können und, wie das Gewebe im Distraktionsspalt, zum Wachstum angeregt werden [14,18]. Nach der Osteotomie bzw.…”

Section: Diskussionunclassified

“…Dieser Vorgang dauert in etwa genauso lang wie die primäre Operation, da das Granulationsgewebe im Distraktorlager entfernt werden muss [18]. Doch diese Apparaturen weisen auch Nachteile auf: Nach Abschluss der Behandlung muss der Distraktor über denselben intraoralen Zugang wieder entfernt werden, über den er eingebracht worden war.…”

Section: Diskussionunclassified

Distraktionsosteogenese der Mandibula bei kraniofazialen Fehlbildungen

Keßler

Wiltfang

Merten

et al. 2000

Mund Kiefer GesichtsChir

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

In recent years, lengthening the human mandible by distraction osteogenesis has become an accepted treatment to correct severe mandibular hypoplasia. Using intraoral unidirectional and extraoral bidirectional distraction devices we report about our experiences and results in the application of the bone distraction technique in four selected cases of syndromal disease, including various forms of mandibular hypoplastic malformations. The patients involved were a boy with Pierre Robin syndrome, a girl with unilateral facial hypoplasia in Goldenhar's syndrome, a case with Nager's syndrome, and a rare case of midline deficiency caused by partial deletion of chromosome 18 (18p-syndrome). The distraction period lasted from 6 to 30 days and new bone formation, ranging from 6 to 28 mm, was achieved.

show abstract

“…In implant surgery, the presence of anatomic restrictions such as the nasal and sinus cavities in combination with insufficient bone volume dictates a more complex therapeutic approach for the placement of endosseous implants. Various treatment modalities have been proposed to augment bone at the implant sites such as guided bone regeneration (Cortellini et al 1993; Buser et al 1996; Simion et al 1998; Corrente et al 2000), onlay grafting (Williamson 1996; Widmark et al 1997; Chiapasco et al 1999), sinus augmentation procedures (Moy et al 1993; Lundgren et al 1996; Wheeler et al 1996; Hürzeler et al 1997; Valentini & Abensur 1997), distraction osteogenesis (Bell et al 1999; Stucki‐McCormick et al 1999; Oda et al 1999), ridge expansion techniques (Scipioni et al 1994; Vercellotti 2000), and others. Transplantation of a preosseointegrated implant from the mental area to a grafted maxillary sinus has been described in a clinical case report by Lazzara (1995).…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Healing of transplanted composite bone grafts–implants: a pilot animal study

Cordioli

Atiyeh

Piattelli

et al. 2003

Clinical Oral Implants Res

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

This experimental pilot study was undertaken to evaluate healing of titanium implants transplanted with the surrounding bone into recipient osseous sites in the rabbit mandible. One short implant was inserted in the horizontal portion of the mandible in each of 10 New Zealand rabbits. Subsequently, and during the same session, the implant with 1.5-2.0 mm of bone circumferentially was removed using a trephine bur and immediately transplanted in a through-and-through hole prepared in the contralateral aspect of the mandible. Three months following the transplantation, the animals were sacrificed and the mandibles processed for histological evaluation. The healing pattern was assessed in relation to (1) bone bridging at the interface between the bone core and the surrounding recipient osseous tissue, (2) differences in bone density between the transplanted bone cylinder and the bone at the margins of the recipient site, and (3) bone-to-implant contact (BIC) at the interface. The transplanted graft-implant cores were integrated within the recipient sites in five out of the 10 specimens while the remaining five bone-implant cores showed fibrous encapsulation. Various patterns of resorption were observed within the peri-implant transplanted hard tissues. Percentage BIC ranged between 1% and 72% in the fibrous-encapsulated specimens and between 20% and 62% in the integrated transplants. Within the limits of this pilot study, the results suggest that immediate transplantation of endosseous implants with their surrounding bone into congruous recipient osseous sites cannot predictably yield graft-implant incorporation and osseointegration of the implants. This alternative surgical modality of immediately transplanting a composite bone graft-implant from highly cortical intraoral or extraoral sites to enhance bone quality and/or volume in implant recipient sites such as the maxillary sinus and tuberosity areas needs to be further investigated.

show abstract

Distraction osteogenesis of the mandible using a submerged intraoral device: A report of three cases

Cited by 20 publications

References 15 publications

Potential and Limitations of Cephalometric Analysis of Maxillofacial Bone Movement in the Case of LeFort III-Distraction

Potential and Limitations of Cephalometric Analysis of Maxillofacial Bone Movement in the Case of LeFort III-Distraction

Distraktionsosteogenese der Mandibula bei kraniofazialen Fehlbildungen

Healing of transplanted composite bone grafts–implants: a pilot animal study

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About