Midfacial Changes Through Distraction Osteogenesis Using a Rigid External Distraction System With Retention Plates in Cleft Lip and Palate Patients

Long-term skeletal stability after maxillary advancement with distraction osteogenesis in cleft lip and palate patients

“…Of the 30 full articles retrieved, only 13 studies fulfilled the final selection criteria and were included in the study. 2,[9][10][11][12][13][14][15][16][17][18][19][20] No articles were found during grey literature searches or reference list searches. A flow diagram of the literature search is given in Figure 1.…”

Development and characterization of elastic nanocomposites for craniofacial contraction osteogenesis

“…[1][2][3][4][5][6][7][8] Oftentimes, osteogenesis is clinically induced using distractive forces, by applying force loads to push boney tissue and encourage new bone growth. In this article, we refer to contraction osteogenesis (CO) as application of tensile load toward the midline of the body, to facilitate new bone growth.…”

“…9,10 Orofacial clefts affect one out of every 700 children in the United States. 1 Patients who have cleft lip or palate deformities have significant lifelong communicative and aesthetic challenges. The ideal means of circumventing many of these anatomic and social issues is to surgically correct the tissue as early as possible.…”

“…Metals are most often used to apply traction forces but can be prone to infection when placed through cutaneous tissue, and secondary surgeries may be needed for their eventual removal. 1,4,8 The most common clinical procedure involves the surgeon suturing the oral mucosa tightly and the applied force is arbitrary and depends upon the surgeon. In humans, the ideal closure rate has been determined using case studies only, where faster rates of closure (greater than 1 mm day 21 ) can impede craniofacial development later in the child's development.…”

“…In humans, the ideal closure rate has been determined using case studies only, where faster rates of closure (greater than 1 mm day 21 ) can impede craniofacial development later in the child's development. 1 A major hurdle to overcome is how to relate the clinicans' need for a material that will induce a palatine bone closure at a rate of 1 mm day 21 to a meaningful elastic modulus and tensile strength of an implantable material. One of the most frequently described experimental techniques involves the use of a metallic device, where the force applied to the bone is unknown, but instead a mechanical crank is used pull boney segments a specific distance closer together at a rate of mm day…”