Patients’ responses to distraction osteogenesis: a multi-centre study

Primrose, A.C.; Broadfoot, E.; Diner, P.A.; Molina, Fernando; Moos, K.F.; Ayoub, Ashraf

doi:10.1016/j.ijom.2004.08.008

Cited by 26 publications

(26 citation statements)

References 22 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Only one (7.69 %) of our patients experienced an abnormal sensation in the lower lip region while Primrose et al [12] reported abnormalities in sensation in 5 (14.70 %) out of their 34 patients. Six (46.15 %) out of our 13 patients developed difficulty in chewing as the distraction progressed.…”

Section: Discussioncontrasting

confidence: 51%

“…Pain or discomfort, especially during activation of the distraction appliance, was the major complaint in all our patients (100 %) but it was satisfactorily managed by judicious NSAID therapy. Both Ayoub et al [13] and Primrose et al [12] also noted pain to be a major complaint in their patients undergoing distraction osteogenesis. However, Ayoub et al [13] also felt that this was more prevalent in the older age group of children, as they could possibly express themselves better.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 97%

“…Interestingly, none of the patients in the current study group, however, mentioned any occurrence of ridicule or ''teasing'' during their treatment. In this context, Primrose et al [12] mentioned that during the treatment period, 18 out of their 34 patients socialized less or not at all, feeling 'abnormal', self conscious and uncomfortable in public situations. Similar findings were noted by Pelo et al [11] when they evaluated 34 patients after the use of external craniofacial distraction devices and found that their patients had significant psychological impact and important limitation on recreational activities.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Other factors in their advantage include lower cost, flexibility of multi-directional distraction and ease of removal of distractor device under local anesthesia after the procedure is completed [11]. Scarring of overlying skin associated with extra oral distraction appliance devices does improve with time [12]. However, it cannot be denied that extra-oral mandibular distraction devices require a certain level of acceptance, tolerance and perseverance from the patient related to personal comfort, functional problems, cosmetic and psycho-social factors.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…However, it cannot be denied that extra-oral mandibular distraction devices require a certain level of acceptance, tolerance and perseverance from the patient related to personal comfort, functional problems, cosmetic and psycho-social factors. Ayoub et al [13] investigated patient response to the use of extra-oral distracters, and another series of data has been presented by Primrose et al [12], who studied patients' responses to both mandibular and midface distraction in a multicenter study.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 4 more Smart Citations

Satisfaction Audit of Patients Undergoing Mandibular Distraction Osteogenesis with Extra-Oral Distraction Appliances

Datta

Utreja

Singh

et al. 2013

J. Maxillofac. Oral Surg.

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Introduction The aim of this research was to evaluate the level of satisfaction of patients who were undergoing distraction osteogenesis of mandible with extraoral distraction appliance. Material and Methods The prospective study was performed on 13 patients with facio-mandibular deformity reporting to the Oral Health Sciences Center, PGIMER, Chandigarh, India, who required surgical and orthodontic intervention for correction. A standardized multiple choice questionnaire was provided to all patients at 3 stages of treatment i.e. during predistraction, distraction and post distraction period. Results Predistraction evaluation showed that the main reason for patients to seek treatment was lack of facial esthetics and all of them were sure that there would be a change in their lives after they underwent this treatment procedure. During distraction phase the most common complaint was pain. None of the patients felt that they were suffering during active distraction phase and all felt that they made the right decision. In post distraction phase, all patients were satisfied with the treatment and felt that the treatment was worth it. Twelve out of 13 patients would recommend treatment to others without any hesitation. Conclusion Our study concludes that distraction osteogenesis of the mandible with extra-oral appliances is acceptable to patients, and improved facial appearance is a positive influence. The appliance and results of the procedure are socially accepted and appreciated.

show abstract

Section: Discussioncontrasting

confidence: 51%