Purpose of review Maxillary hypoplasia is often unavoidable sequelae in cleft lip and palate patients who had undergone timely surgical and orthodontic intervention. Since 1970s these deformities have been traditionally corrected by means of orthognathic surgery. Numerous published studies have tried different techniques to combat the same. The advantages and disadvantages of the various techniques are overviewed. Recent Findings Distraction osteogenesis is one of the recent major developments in the field of oral and maxillofacial surgery and provides promising outcome. Tooth borne device hyrax proved good skeletal stability of distracted anterior maxillary segment. Distraction forces when directly transferred to the bone resulted in significant dentoalveolar compensation. This modern technique has also been used to evaluate its immediate and long term impact on nasal index as well which showed significant increase. This technique overcomes significant disadvantages of relapse and velopharyngeal insufficiency and also helps to produce better normal facial esthetics and profiles and masticatory function. Summary The oral and maxillofacial surgeons have widely accepted the use of maxillary distraction osteogenesis as an attractive alternative to treat malocclusion in CLP patients and this has broadened the reconstructive spectrum. Recent advancements have led to a wider clinical application and improved acceptance.
| Published in |
Science Journal of Clinical Medicine (Volume 5, Issue 4-1)
This article belongs to the Special Issue Clinical Conspectus on Cleft Deformities |
| DOI | 10.11648/j.sjcm.s.2016050401.20 |
| Page(s) | 59-63 |
| Creative Commons |
This is an Open Access article, distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/), which permits unrestricted use, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, provided the original work is properly cited. |
| Copyright |
Copyright © The Author(s), 2016. Published by Science Publishing Group |
Distraction Osteogenesis, Maxillary Hypoplasia, Rigid External Device, Le Fort 1 Osteotomy
| [1] | Chacko T, Vinod S, Mani V, George, Sivaprasad KK. Management of Cleft Maxillary Hypoplasia with Anterior Maxillary Distraction: Our Experience.J Maxillofac Oral Surg. 2014 Dec; 13(4): 550-5. |
| [2] | Scolozzi P. Distraction osteogenesis in the management of severe maxillary hypoplasia in cleft lip and palate patients. J Craniofac Surg. 2008; 19(5): 1199–1214. |
| [3] | Patrick D. Combs, MD and Raymond J. Harshbarger, III. Advancement Using Distraction Osteogenesis Le Fort I Maxillary Semin Plast Surg. 2014 Nov; 28(4): 193–198. |
| [4] | Rachmiel A. Treatment of maxillary cleft palate: distraction osteogenesis versus orthognathic surgery—part one: maxillary distraction. J Oral Maxillofac Surg. 2007; 65(4): 753–757 |
| [5] | Cheung L K, Chua H D. A meta-analysis of cleft maxillary osteotomy and distraction osteogenesis. Int J Oral Maxillofac Surg. 2006; 35(1): 14–24. |
| [6] | Kumar A, Gabbay J S, Nikjoo R. et al. Improved outcomes in cleft patients with severe maxillary deficiency after Le Fort I internal distraction. Plast Reconstr Surg. 2006; 117(5): 1499–1509. |
| [7] | Chua H D, Hägg M B, Cheung L K. Cleft maxillary distraction versus orthognathic surgery—which one is more stable in 5 years? Oral Surg Oral Med Oral Pathol Oral Radiol Endod. 2010; 109(6): 803–814. |
| [8] | Terbish M, Choi HY, Park YC, Yi CK, Cha JY. Premaxillary Distraction Osteogenesis Using an Intraoral Appliance for Unilateral Cleft Lip and Palate: Case Report. Cleft Palate Craniofac J. 2015 Jul; 52(4): e95-e102. |
| [9] | Gao QW, Song HF, Xu MH, Liu CM, Chai JK.. [Mandibular-driven simultaneous maxillo-mandibular distraction for hemifacial microsomia with rapid prototyping technology] Int J Oral Maxillofac Surg. 2009; 35(1): 14–24. |
| [10] | Rattan V1, Jena AK, Singh SP, Utreja AK. Maxillary distraction osteogenesis at Le Fort-I level induces bone apposition at infraorbital rim. Clin Oral Investig. 2014 Sep; 18(7): 1741-8. |
| [11] | Mitsukawa N, Morishita T, Saiga A, Akita S, Kubota Y, Satoh K Backward distraction osteogenesis in a patient with severe mandibular micrognathia. J Craniofac Surg. 2013 Sep; 24(5): 1653-6. |
| [12] | Mitsukawa N, Saiga A, Morishita T, Satoh K Special distraction osteogenesis before bone grafting for alveolar cleft defects to correct maxillary deformities in patients with bilateral cleft lips and palates: distraction osteogenesis performed separately for each bone segment. J Craniomaxillofac Surg. 2014 Jul; 42(5): 623-8. |
| [13] | Figueroa A A, Polley J W. Clinical controversies in oral and maxillofacial surgery: Part two. External versus internal distraction osteogenesis for the management of severe maxillary hypoplasia: external distraction. J Oral Maxillofac Surg. 2008; 66(12): 2598–2604. |
| [14] | Ross R B. Treatment variables affecting facial growth in complete unilateral cleft lip and palate. Cleft Palate J.1987; 24(1): 5–77. |
| [15] | Yu H1, Dai J, Wang X, Zhang W, Shen SG. Le Fort II midfacial distraction combined with orthognathic surgery in the treatment of nasomaxillary hypoplasia. J Craniofac Surg. 2014 May; 25(3): e241-4. |
| [16] | Hettinger PC, Hanson PR, Denny AD. Le Fort III distraction using rotation advancement of the midface in patients with cleft lip and palate.. Plast Reconstr Surg. 2013 Dec; 132(6): 1532-41. |
| [17] | Sakamoto Y, Nakajima H, Tamada I, Sakamoto T. Le Fort IV + I distraction osteogenesis using an internal device for syndromic craniosynostosis J Oral Maxillofac Surg. 2014 Apr; 72(4): 788-95. |
| [18] | Sruthi Rao (Janardhan), S. M. Kotrashetti, J. B. Lingaraj, P. X. Pinto, K. M. Keluskar, Siddharth Jain, Piyush Sone,2 and Santhosh Rao Anterior Segmental Distraction Osteogenesis in the Hypoplastic Cleft MaxillaJ Craniomaxillofac Surg. 2012 Jul; 42(5): 423-9. |
| [19] | Dobbs TD, Watt-Smith SR, Wall SA, Johnson D. A novel use of the rigid external distraction frame: acute on-table distraction with autologous bone graftingJ Craniofac Surg. 2014 Sep; 25(5): 1843-5. |
| [20] | Dua G, Navin Kumar A, Roy ID, Roy SK. Maxillary distraction osteogenesis in cleft lip and palate cases with midface hypoplasia using rigid external distractor: an alternative technique. J Craniofac Surg. 2014 May; 25(3): 746-51. |
| [21] | Tong H, Gao F, Yin J, Zhang X, Zhang C, Yin N, Zhao Z. Transsutural distraction osteogenesis applied to maxillary complex with new internalized distraction device: analysis of the feasibility and long-term osteogenesis outcome. J Craniofac Surg. 2015 Mar; 26(2): 402-7 |
| [22] | Margaride LA, Breuer J. Transmaxillary osteogenic distraction with intraoral tooth-borne distractors.. J Craniofac Surg. 2012 Sep; 23(5): 1425-7. |
| [23] | Olmez S, Dogan S, Pekedis M, Yildiz H. Biomechanical evaluation of sagittal maxillary internal distraction osteogenesis in unilateral cleft lip and palate patient and noncleft patients: a three-dimensional finite element analysis. Angle Orthod. 2014 Sep; 84(5): 815-24. |
| [24] | Laure B, Moret A, Joly A, Travers N, Listrat A, Krastinova D, Goga D. Orbitofrontal monobloc advancement for Crouzon syndrome. J Craniomaxillofac Surg. 2014 Sep; 42(6): e335-8. |
| [25] | Konaş E, Aliyev A, Tunçbilek G. Congenital maxillomandibular syngnathia: a new management technique using distraction techniquesJ Craniofac Surg. 2015 Jan; 26(1): e68-70. |
| [26] | Harada K, Sato M, Omura K. Blood-flow change and recovery of sensibility in the maxillary dental pulp during and after maxillary distraction: a pilot study. Oral Surg Oral Med Oral Pathol Oral Radiol Endod. |
APA Style
Midhuna Prathap, Varun Menon P. (2016). Techniques for the Treatment of Maxillary Hypoplasia in Cleft Patients: An Overview. Science Journal of Clinical Medicine, 5(4-1), 59-63. https://doi.org/10.11648/j.sjcm.s.2016050401.20
ACS Style
Midhuna Prathap; Varun Menon P. Techniques for the Treatment of Maxillary Hypoplasia in Cleft Patients: An Overview. Sci. J. Clin. Med. 2016, 5(4-1), 59-63. doi: 10.11648/j.sjcm.s.2016050401.20
Share This Article
Twitter
Linked In
Facebook
Copy
Download@article{10.11648/j.sjcm.s.2016050401.20,
author = {Midhuna Prathap and Varun Menon P.},
title = {Techniques for the Treatment of Maxillary Hypoplasia in Cleft Patients: An Overview},
journal = {Science Journal of Clinical Medicine},
volume = {5},
number = {4-1},
pages = {59-63},
doi = {10.11648/j.sjcm.s.2016050401.20},
url = {https://doi.org/10.11648/j.sjcm.s.2016050401.20},
eprint = {https://article.sciencepublishinggroup.com/pdf/10.11648.j.sjcm.s.2016050401.20},
abstract = {Purpose of review Maxillary hypoplasia is often unavoidable sequelae in cleft lip and palate patients who had undergone timely surgical and orthodontic intervention. Since 1970s these deformities have been traditionally corrected by means of orthognathic surgery. Numerous published studies have tried different techniques to combat the same. The advantages and disadvantages of the various techniques are overviewed. Recent Findings Distraction osteogenesis is one of the recent major developments in the field of oral and maxillofacial surgery and provides promising outcome. Tooth borne device hyrax proved good skeletal stability of distracted anterior maxillary segment. Distraction forces when directly transferred to the bone resulted in significant dentoalveolar compensation. This modern technique has also been used to evaluate its immediate and long term impact on nasal index as well which showed significant increase. This technique overcomes significant disadvantages of relapse and velopharyngeal insufficiency and also helps to produce better normal facial esthetics and profiles and masticatory function. Summary The oral and maxillofacial surgeons have widely accepted the use of maxillary distraction osteogenesis as an attractive alternative to treat malocclusion in CLP patients and this has broadened the reconstructive spectrum. Recent advancements have led to a wider clinical application and improved acceptance.},
year = {2016}
}
TY - JOUR T1 - Techniques for the Treatment of Maxillary Hypoplasia in Cleft Patients: An Overview AU - Midhuna Prathap AU - Varun Menon P. Y1 - 2016/06/16 PY - 2016 N1 - https://doi.org/10.11648/j.sjcm.s.2016050401.20 DO - 10.11648/j.sjcm.s.2016050401.20 T2 - Science Journal of Clinical Medicine JF - Science Journal of Clinical Medicine JO - Science Journal of Clinical Medicine SP - 59 EP - 63 PB - Science Publishing Group SN - 2327-2732 UR - https://doi.org/10.11648/j.sjcm.s.2016050401.20 AB - Purpose of review Maxillary hypoplasia is often unavoidable sequelae in cleft lip and palate patients who had undergone timely surgical and orthodontic intervention. Since 1970s these deformities have been traditionally corrected by means of orthognathic surgery. Numerous published studies have tried different techniques to combat the same. The advantages and disadvantages of the various techniques are overviewed. Recent Findings Distraction osteogenesis is one of the recent major developments in the field of oral and maxillofacial surgery and provides promising outcome. Tooth borne device hyrax proved good skeletal stability of distracted anterior maxillary segment. Distraction forces when directly transferred to the bone resulted in significant dentoalveolar compensation. This modern technique has also been used to evaluate its immediate and long term impact on nasal index as well which showed significant increase. This technique overcomes significant disadvantages of relapse and velopharyngeal insufficiency and also helps to produce better normal facial esthetics and profiles and masticatory function. Summary The oral and maxillofacial surgeons have widely accepted the use of maxillary distraction osteogenesis as an attractive alternative to treat malocclusion in CLP patients and this has broadened the reconstructive spectrum. Recent advancements have led to a wider clinical application and improved acceptance. VL - 5 IS - 4-1 ER -
Email: