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

Abstract

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.

Outcome analysis of biplanar mandibular distraction in adults

“…In Datta et al [ 7 ] about 53.84% of the study group readily accepted the extraoral appliance, while the others had some apprehension regarding the bulk and esthetics. In our study group, 100% of the study group accepted the extraoral device.…”

“…But the rate of patients experiencing transient numbness of the lower lip varied widely in all studies. While Datta et al reported 76% patients experiencing this complication, only 14% had transient numbness in the study group of Primrose et al [ 7 , 11 ]. In our group 16% of patients experienced this complication.…”

“…The prime factor for motivation for surgery was the aesthetic appearance and the decision was influenced by family members in 100% of cases. In the study of Datta et al [ 7 ] the family members were involved in 58.3% of the cases in motivating the patient for surgery. Since all patients in our study group were young and not married so the family had a much more prominent role in decision-making.…”

“…The most common side effect of the distraction phase was reported as pain in the lower jaw and difficulty in chewing [ 7 , 10 , 11 ]. Although most patients in our study group complained of pain, it was managed with oral dose of NSAIDs.…”

“…In order to assess patient satisfaction, we used the questionnaire designed by Datta et al [ 7 ] for the pre-distraction, distraction and post-distraction phases. The pre-distraction questionnaire was administered 1 week before surgery after the patient had been counseled regarding the surgery.…”