Lengthening of the mandible by distraction osteogenesis

Posterior maxillary alveolar vertical distraction osteogenesis by bi‐directional distractor

“…The principle of distraction osteogenesis is well established in long bones [], and has been applied to the maxilla [] and mandible []. In the present case, the patient showed a complication of insufficient soft tissue to adequately cover a large bone graft in the right maxillary alveolar ridge, so vertical distraction osteogenesis was the most desirable approach.…”

Posterior maxillary alveolar vertical distraction osteogenesis by bi‐directional distractor

“…The principle of distraction osteogenesis is well established in long bones [], and has been applied to the maxilla [] and mandible []. In the present case, the patient showed a complication of insufficient soft tissue to adequately cover a large bone graft in the right maxillary alveolar ridge, so vertical distraction osteogenesis was the most desirable approach.…”

Cephalometric evaluation of the craniofacial complex in patients treated with an intraoral distraction osteogenesis device: A long-term study

“…Their evaluation of 10 patients who underwent unilateral DOG showed that improvements in asymmetry were seen after 25.5 months 24. Likewise, another study by Rachmeil et al6 demonstrated improvement in facial symmetry 1 year later, and the distracted side continued to grow at a similar rate relative to the unaffected side. However, such results appear to be short term.…”

Is early osteodistraction a solution for the ascending ramus compartment in hemifacial microsomia? A literature study

“…Some soft-tissue complications following distraction are well known and with extra-oral appliances, pin tract infections and hypertrophic scars have been reported (Rachmiel et al, 1995;Klein and Howaldt, 1996;Corcoran et al, 1997;Carls and Sailer, 1998;Tharanon and Sinn, 1999;Hollier et al, 1999a). With buried intra-oral appliances, soft-tissue infections are also known to occur as soft-tissue closure is difficult (Diner et al, 1999).…”

Posterior maxillary alveolar vertical distraction osteogenesis by bi‐directional distractor

“…The principle of distraction osteogenesis is well established in long bones [], and has been applied to the maxilla [] and mandible []. In the present case, the patient showed a complication of insufficient soft tissue to adequately cover a large bone graft in the right maxillary alveolar ridge, so vertical distraction osteogenesis was the most desirable approach.…”

Cephalometric evaluation of the craniofacial complex in patients treated with an intraoral distraction osteogenesis device: A long-term study

“…Their evaluation of 10 patients who underwent unilateral DOG showed that improvements in asymmetry were seen after 25.5 months 24. Likewise, another study by Rachmeil et al6 demonstrated improvement in facial symmetry 1 year later, and the distracted side continued to grow at a similar rate relative to the unaffected side. However, such results appear to be short term.…”

Is early osteodistraction a solution for the ascending ramus compartment in hemifacial microsomia? A literature study

“…Some soft-tissue complications following distraction are well known and with extra-oral appliances, pin tract infections and hypertrophic scars have been reported (Rachmiel et al, 1995;Klein and Howaldt, 1996;Corcoran et al, 1997;Carls and Sailer, 1998;Tharanon and Sinn, 1999;Hollier et al, 1999a). With buried intra-oral appliances, soft-tissue infections are also known to occur as soft-tissue closure is difficult (Diner et al, 1999).…”

Posterior maxillary alveolar vertical distraction osteogenesis by bi‐directional distractor

“…The principle of distraction osteogenesis is well established in long bones [], and has been applied to the maxilla [] and mandible []. In the present case, the patient showed a complication of insufficient soft tissue to adequately cover a large bone graft in the right maxillary alveolar ridge, so vertical distraction osteogenesis was the most desirable approach.…”

Cephalometric evaluation of the craniofacial complex in patients treated with an intraoral distraction osteogenesis device: A long-term study

“…Their evaluation of 10 patients who underwent unilateral DOG showed that improvements in asymmetry were seen after 25.5 months 24. Likewise, another study by Rachmeil et al6 demonstrated improvement in facial symmetry 1 year later, and the distracted side continued to grow at a similar rate relative to the unaffected side. However, such results appear to be short term.…”

Is early osteodistraction a solution for the ascending ramus compartment in hemifacial microsomia? A literature study

“…Some soft-tissue complications following distraction are well known and with extra-oral appliances, pin tract infections and hypertrophic scars have been reported (Rachmiel et al, 1995;Klein and Howaldt, 1996;Corcoran et al, 1997;Carls and Sailer, 1998;Tharanon and Sinn, 1999;Hollier et al, 1999a). With buried intra-oral appliances, soft-tissue infections are also known to occur as soft-tissue closure is difficult (Diner et al, 1999).…”