Comparative Evaluation of Vertical Osteotomy and Sagittal Split Osteotomy for Mandibular Corpus Distraction

被引:4
作者
Sahoo, N. K. [1 ]
Rangarajan, H. [1 ]
机构
[1] Army Hosp Res & Referral, Dept Oral & Maxillofacial Surg, Army Dent Ctr, New Delhi, India
关键词
GRADUAL DISTRACTION; OSTEOGENESIS;
D O I
10.1016/j.joms.2010.06.201
中图分类号
R78 [口腔科学];
学科分类号
1003 ;
摘要
Purpose: Mandibular corpus distraction is conventionally carried out by fixing miniaturized intraoral distractors to the body of the mandible after vertical osteotomy posterior to the last tooth. This procedure is not only technically difficult but also has high chances of damaging the inferior alveolar neurovascular bundle. The third molars are also required to be extracted. To overcome these problems, bilateral sagittal split ramus osteotomy was used and the distractor was fixed. The study was carried out to compare the results of the 2 osteotomies for mandibular corpus distraction. Patients and Methods: Twenty patients with nonsyndromic mandibular hypoplasia requiring corpus distraction were divided into 2 groups of 10 each. In group 1 osteotomy was carried out by conventional vertical body osteotomy and in group 2 by bilateral sagittal split osteotomy, and distractors were fixed. All cases were evaluated for 24 months. The results were compared clinically and radiologically. Results: The average amount of bone lengthening achieved was 12 mm. Two patients in group 1 had paresthesia of the left lip throughout the follow-up period. One patient in group 2 had uncontrolled flair of the proximal segment, leading to a skeletal relapse of 5 mm. There were no other complications. Improvements in facial profile and occlusion were well maintained during follow-up. Conclusion: Mandibular corpus distraction with bilateral sagittal split osteotomy is a better option than distraction with conventional vertical osteotomy. (C) 2011 American Association of Oral and Maxillofacial Surgeons J Oral Maxillofac Surg 69:381-389, 2011
引用
收藏
页码:381 / 389
页数:9
相关论文
共 9 条
[1]  
*AAOMS, 2003, STAT AM ASS OR MAX S
[2]   Original sagittal split osteotomy revisited for mandibular distraction [J].
Choi, JY ;
Hwang, KG ;
Baek, SH ;
Lee, JH ;
Kim, TW ;
Kim, MJ ;
Chang, YH .
JOURNAL OF CRANIO-MAXILLOFACIAL SURGERY, 2001, 29 (03) :165-173
[3]  
DAL PONT G, 1961, J Oral Surg Anesth Hosp Dent Serv, V19, P42
[4]  
Makarov MR, 1998, J ORAL MAXIL SURG, V56, P1417, DOI 10.1016/S0278-2391(98)90407-4
[5]   LENGTHENING THE HUMAN MANDIBLE BY GRADUAL DISTRACTION [J].
MCCARTHY, JG ;
SCHREIBER, J ;
KARP, N ;
THORNE, CH ;
GRAYSON, BH .
PLASTIC AND RECONSTRUCTIVE SURGERY, 1992, 89 (01) :1-8
[6]   Biomechanical considerations of mandibular lengthening and widening by gradual distraction using a computer model [J].
Samchukov, ML ;
Cope, JB ;
Harper, RP ;
Ross, JD .
JOURNAL OF ORAL AND MAXILLOFACIAL SURGERY, 1998, 56 (01) :51-59
[7]   The effect of sagittal orientation of the distractor on the biomechanics of mandibular lengthening [J].
Samchukov, ML ;
Cope, JB ;
Cherkashin, AM .
JOURNAL OF ORAL AND MAXILLOFACIAL SURGERY, 1999, 57 (10) :1214-1221
[8]   Distraction osteogenesis versus bilateral sagittal split osteotomy for advancement of the retrognathic mandible: a review of the literature [J].
Schreuder, W. H. ;
Jansma, J. ;
Bierman, M. W. J. ;
Vissink, A. .
INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF ORAL AND MAXILLOFACIAL SURGERY, 2007, 36 (02) :103-110
[9]   THE EFFECT OF MISSING TEETH ON MASTICATORY PERFORMANCE AND EFFICIENCY [J].
YURKSTAS, AA .
JOURNAL OF PROSTHETIC DENTISTRY, 1954, 4 (01) :120-123