Virtual 3D planning and guidance of mandibular distraction osteogenesis

2006 ◽  
Vol 11 (2) ◽  
pp. 51-62 ◽  
Author(s):  
Michael Meehan ◽  
Dan Morris ◽  
Calvin R. Maurer ◽  
Anuja K. Antony ◽  
Federico Barbagli ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Distraction Osteogenesis ◽  
Mandibular Distraction ◽  
Mandibular Distraction Osteogenesis

A Systematic Review of Mandibular Distraction Osteogenesis Versus Orthodontic Airway Plate for Airway Obstruction Treatment in Pierre Robin Sequence

2021 ◽  
pp. 105566562110118
Author(s):  
Darren B. Abbas ◽  
Christopher Lavin ◽  
Evan J. Fahy ◽  
HyeRan Choo ◽  
Mai Thy Truong ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Airway Obstruction ◽  
Distraction Osteogenesis ◽  
Literature Search ◽  
Oral Feeding ◽  
Treatment Modalities ◽  
Pierre Robin Sequence ◽  
Mandibular Distraction ◽  
Robin Sequence ◽  
Mandibular Distraction Osteogenesis ◽  
Pierre Robin

Objective: Mandibular distraction osteogenesis (MDO) is frequently performed to address airway obstruction in patients with Pierre Robin sequence (PRS), though more recently the technique of orthodontic airway plating (OAP) has gained traction. We aimed to evaluate OAP compared to MDO for airway obstruction in PRS. Design: A systematic literature search across PubMed, Embase, and Google Scholar identified all studies published in English, which involved MDO or any form of OAP as treatments for PRS. All relevant articles were reviewed in detail and reported on, adhering to PRISMA guidelines. Main Outcome Measures: Airway (tracheostomy avoidance, decannulation rate), feeding (full oral feeding tolerance). Results: Literature search identified 970 articles, of which 42 MDO studies and 9 OAP studies met criteria for review. A total of 1159 individuals were treated with MDO, and 322 individuals were treated with OAP. Primary outcomes appear similar for MDO and OAP at face value; however, this must be interpreted with different pretreatment contexts in mind. Conclusions: Orthodontic airway plating may be considered for airway obstruction in PRS, as some airway-related and feeding-related outcomes appear similar with MDO, per existing evidence in the literature. However, since PRS severity differed between studies, OAP cannot be uniformly considered a replacement for MDO. Further research is required to more comprehensively assess these treatment modalities inclusive of metrics that allow for direct comparison.

scholarly journals Intermolar Mandibular Distraction Osteogenesis—A Preliminary Report

2021 ◽  
Vol 11 (9) ◽  
pp. 4118
Author(s):  
Suen A. N. Lie ◽  
Britt H. B. T. Engelen ◽  
Veronique C. M. L. Timmer ◽  
Nico M. P. Vrijens ◽  
Paolo Asperio ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Distraction Osteogenesis ◽  
Treatment Time ◽  
Average Length ◽  
Case Series ◽  
Growth Spurt ◽  
Overall Treatment Time ◽  
Mandibular Distraction ◽  
Mandibular Distraction Osteogenesis ◽  
Root Fractures

Background: Dental Class II is the most common indication for combined orthodontic-orthognathic treatment. Intermolar mandibular distraction osteogenesis (IMDO) treatment was performed during the growth spurt, to avoid surgery at a later age. The aim of this study is to present our first experience with IMDO. Methods: This is a retrospective case series of patients who underwent an IMDO. All patients showed mandibular retrognathism, and orthodontic treatment with functional appliances was not successful. Results: In total, 20 patients (mean age of 14.8 years (SD = 0.9 ys) were included. All patients achieved a Class I occlusion. An average length gain of 9.6 mm (SD = 3.7 mm) was reached. In one patient an abscess occurred. Nine patients presented with root fractures of the second molar; three were lost, one treated endodontically. The average time between insertion and removal of the distractors was 4.6 months (SD = 1.5 mths). In one case a premature consolidation was seen. Conclusion: We achieved satisfactory results with IMDO, although undesirable effects occurred. An advantage is the manageable overall treatment time. Open questions concern the occurrence of root fractures. Furthermore, the question of long-term stability is open. The question of dynamic distraction treatment in relation to temporomandibular joint changes can only be answered in the long term.

O.284 Mandibular distraction osteogenesis to treat OSAS

2008 ◽  
Vol 36 ◽  
pp. S72
Author(s):  
F. Elisa ◽  
B. Brevi ◽  
L. Toma ◽  
S. Banchini ◽  
E. Sesenna
Keyword(s):  
Distraction Osteogenesis ◽  
Mandibular Distraction ◽  
Mandibular Distraction Osteogenesis

???Mapping the Gap???: Combined Histologic and ??CT Assessment of Bone Healing During Mandibular Distraction Osteogenesis

2005 ◽  
Vol 116 (Supplement) ◽  
pp. 171-172 ◽  
Author(s):  
Daniel Adam Schwarz ◽  
Ayman Elmeligy ◽  
Krikor G. Arman ◽  
Michael J. Plakke ◽  
Steven R. Buchman
Keyword(s):  
Distraction Osteogenesis ◽  
Bone Healing ◽  
Mandibular Distraction ◽  
Mandibular Distraction Osteogenesis
Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document