Effects of mandibular symphyseal distraction osteogenesis on mandibular structures

Malkoç, Sıddık; İşeri̇, Haluk; Karaman, Ali̇; Mutlu, Necip; Küçükkolbaşı, Hasan

doi:10.1016/j.ajodo.2005.02.024

Cited by 46 publications

(47 citation statements)

References 33 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…14, 15 Little research, however, has compared directly the effects of different appliances using a consistent treatment protocol with thorough record keeping. Both toothborne and hybrid distraction devices are recognized for their effective treatment of mandibular crowding.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…12 A triangular regenerate has been demonstrated when using a tooth-borne distractor, 14 while parallel regenerate has been shown to result from hybrid distraction. 15 In the current study, two large groups of patients who underwent tooth-borne and hybrid distraction were compared. The study differs from existing literature by directly comparing distraction of two appliances using a consistent treatment protocol with thorough record keeping.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Skeletal and dental effects of tooth-borne versus hybrid devices for mandibular symphyseal distraction osteogenesis

Niculescu

King

Lindauer

2013

The Angle Orthodontist

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Objective: To evaluate and compare, retrospectively, the skeletal and dental effects of mandibular symphyseal distraction osteogenesis (MSDO) achieved through the use of tooth-borne versus hybrid distractors. Materials and Methods: Pretreatment (T1), predistraction (T2), postdistraction (T3), and posttreatment (T4) orthodontic records were collected and analyzed for 47 patients (20 toothborne, 27 hybrid). At each time point, records included intraoral photographs, study models, postero-anterior cephalometric radiographs, and lateral cephalometric radiographs. Submental vertex radiographs were taken at T2, T3, and T4. Changes in a total of 18 measurements were analyzed to compare patients undergoing tooth-borne versus hybrid distraction. Results: The cumulative effects of orthodontics and MSDO produced similar gains in measured arch widths, with a decreased irregularity index in both groups (P . .05). However, there were differences in the timing during which the expansion was achieved. The hybrid distractor group gained space during the distraction phase of treatment. The tooth-borne group showed greater gains during pre-and postdistraction orthodontics. Comparisons of intercanine and interbone marker widths demonstrated a more parallel separation of bone during distraction with the hybrid distractor (P , .001). Distraction with the tooth-borne distractor was disproportionate, with greater separation of the canines in alveolar bone than of the bone markers in basal bone. During postdistraction orthodontics, the tooth-borne distractor group showed statistically greater increases in measurements. Conclusion: Both skeletal and dental expansion was achieved with both appliances. Greater skeletal expansion was achieved with a hybrid distractor. Greater dental expansion was achieved with a tooth-borne distractor. (Angle Orthod. 2014;84:68-75.)

show abstract

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Skeletal and dental effects of tooth-borne versus hybrid devices for mandibular symphyseal distraction osteogenesis

Niculescu

King

Lindauer

2013

The Angle Orthodontist

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…They noticed that the achieved expansion takes place not only in the alveolar bone, but also in the basal bone and surrounding soft tissues. In addition, they observed that the expansion created by symphyseal distraction was not proportionate, namely the expansion was greater in the canine areas than in the molar areas 7,19,23 . Because of this, due to the transverse and anterior-posterior growth achieved, there was an increase in the length of the arch and a change in its shape, going from a ''V'' to a ''U'' 7,9,11 .…”

Section: Symphyseal Distractionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…For their part, Molkoç et al and Landes et al argue that there is a decrease in this distance with hybrid bone-supported distractor 20,23 . Nonetheless, temporomandibular condyles adapt easily to lateral and median movements given that only temporary symptoms of temporomandibular joint dysfunction have affected a few patients 5,11,15,23 . A study on monkeys demonstrated that minor histological changes occurred in the different layers of the condyle, particularly in areas of compression.…”

Section: Advantages Of the Techniquementioning

confidence: 99%

“…They stipulate that an early movement can lead to a periodontal defect, an osseous defect and even the loss of a tooth 8,11,13,14 . Whereas others advocate an early reactivation, namely from 5 days to 2 weeks following the end of the activations of the device 3,4,11,23,29 . Liou suggests that the orthodontist initiate orthodontic movements early because the forces created accelerate the maturation of the fibrous bone that is produced 22 .…”

Section: Type Of Distractormentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation