Comparison of different distraction rates in the mandible: an experimental investigation

被引:58
作者
Al Ruhaimi, KA [1 ]
机构
[1] King Saud Univ, Dept Maxillofacial Surg & Diagnost Sci, Riyadh 11545, Saudi Arabia
关键词
mandibular reconstruction; distraction osteogenesis; distraction rate;
D O I
10.1054/ijom.2001.0046
中图分类号
R78 [口腔科学];
学科分类号
1003 ;
摘要
This study evaluated bone distracted in rabbit mandibles at different intervals and with different daily rates of distraction histologically with the goal of attaining a universally accepted distraction protocol. Osteogenesis was investigated in mandibles distracted at different rates in 24 New Zealand rabbits using a custom-made submerged distracter. Distraction was started on the third postoperative day for a total of 10 mm. The animals were divided into four groups each containing six rabbits. Group 1 was distracted 0.5 mm twice a day; Group was distracted 1.0 mm once a day; Group 3 was distracted 1.0 mm twice a day and Group 4 was distracted 2.0 mm once a day. All the animals were sacrificed 6 weeks after completion of distraction. Half of the distracted mandibles were decalcified for H&E staining and polarized light microscopy studies. Sections of the undecalcified half of the samples were stained with Goldner's stain. The results indicate that a distraction rate of 1.0 mm per day produced the best osteogenesis among the tested rates. There was no great difference in osteogenesis between 1.0 mm once a day and 0.5 mm twice a day. However, 0.5-mm distraction may result in immature bone healing. Distraction of 1.0 mm twice a day resulted in incomplete osteogenesis, while distraction of 2.0 mm once a day resulted in fibrous union. It is clear from these results that a shorter period of device fixation should be achieved by methods other than rapid distraction.
引用
收藏
页码:220 / 227
页数:8
相关论文
共 18 条
[1]  
Abbott LC, 1927, J BONE JOINT SURG, V9, P128
[2]   A submerged osteodistraction device: An innovative technique for experimental animal studies [J].
Al Ruhaimi, KA .
JOURNAL OF CRANIOFACIAL SURGERY, 2000, 11 (01) :59-61
[3]   Distraction osteogenesis in maxillofacial surgery using internal devices: Review of five cases [J].
Chin, M ;
Toth, BA .
JOURNAL OF ORAL AND MAXILLOFACIAL SURGERY, 1996, 54 (01) :45-53
[4]  
Codivilla A., 1905, AM J ORTHOP SURG, V2, P353, DOI [10.1007/s11999-008-0518-7, DOI 10.1007/S11999-008-0518-7]
[5]  
CORTESSE CLA, 1994, J ORAL MAXILLOFAC SU, V52, P1179
[6]  
Guerrissi J, 1994, J Craniofac Surg, V5, P313, DOI 10.1097/00001665-199411000-00010
[7]  
Ilizarov G A, 1971, Ortop Travmatol Protez, V32, P7
[8]   THE TENSION STRESS EFFECT ON THE GENESIS AND GROWTH OF TISSUES .1. THE INFLUENCE OF STABILITY OF FIXATION AND SOFT-TISSUE PRESERVATION [J].
ILIZAROV, GA .
CLINICAL ORTHOPAEDICS AND RELATED RESEARCH, 1989, (238) :249-281
[9]  
ILIZAROV GA, 1989, CLIN ORTHOP RELAT R, P263
[10]   MEMBRANOUS BONE LENGTHENING - A SERIAL HISTOLOGICAL STUDY [J].
KARP, NS ;
MCCARTHY, JG ;
SCHREIBER, JS ;
SISSONS, HA ;
THORNE, CHM .
ANNALS OF PLASTIC SURGERY, 1992, 29 (01) :2-7