Mandibular symphyseal distraction osteogenesis: review of three techniques

Changes in the mandibular and dento-alveolar structures by the use of tooth borne mandibular symphyseal distraction devices

“…This finding confirms previous results described in literature regardless of which distractors were used (Kewitt and Van Sickels, 1999;del Santo et al, 2000del Santo et al, , 2002Alkan et al, 2007;Landes et al, 2008;Mommaerts et al, 2008;Gunbay et al, 2009). Temporomandibular joint structures could adapt to this gradual change, because the distraction procedure gradually widens the mandible, and the establishment of good occlusion ensures normal joint adaptation Gökalp, 2008).…”

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

“…12 Past research has identified the differences in the bony regenerate produced by different appliances. 13 Uckan et al 12 described the concept that if the force of distraction is concentrated above the center of resistance, greater separation will occur within the alveolar bone than in the basal bone. A comparison of tooth-borne and hybrid distraction should support that the lower point of force application obtained by the hybrid distractor produces a more parallel regenerate, while the more alveolar-placed tooth-borne distractor rotates the segments for a disproportionate regenerate, with wider separation at the alveolus.…”

Biomechanical Configurations of Mandibular Transport Distraction Osteogenesis Devices

“…Inspite of the proven success of the MBT technique, problems still persist, such as soft tissue dehiscence, occurrence of occlusal disturbances, bone transport segment losing orientation, premature consolidation, regenerate deficiency, docking site nonunion, and failing devices. 34 Although several mandibular distraction devices have failed, 13,32,[35][36][37] paradoxically, no studies have examined both device design and biomechanical characteristics.…”