Journals / International Dental Research / 2021 / Cilt: 11 - Sayı: Supplement 1

Shortening of bones using novel contraction osteogenesis device: An experimental study

Pages
26–31
Publication Date
2022-10-19
DOI
—
🏛️Bibliographic metadata and full text access for this article are provided via DergiPark.
DergiPark Record ↗
✨

AI Summary & Key Takeaways

AI Insight
⚡ TL;DR(Too Long; Didn't Read)

Conclusion: This study verified that the jaw can be shortened by performing slow, controlled contraction with a bone resorption pattern.

📌 3 Key Takeaways

🎯
Objective & Hypothesis:Aim: Given the high complication rates associated with orthognathic surgery for the correction of maxillomandibular malformations, studies have focused on alternative methods of strengthening the jaw, such as distraction osteogenesis.
📊
Key Findings & Data:Methodology: A 2.5–3 cm skin incision was made on the left tibia of each of 15 New Zealand white rabbits aged 12–18 months, followed by fixation of 15 mm pre-opened distractor devices to the tibia after osteotomy.
💡
Conclusion & Impact:Conclusion: This study verified that the jaw can be shortened by performing slow, controlled contraction with a bone resorption pattern.
🔬Design:Research Article
📍Scope:Comprehensive Sample
⚙️Variables:Domain Parameters

Abstract

Aim: Given the high complication rates associated with orthognathic surgery for the correction of maxillomandibular malformations, studies have focused on alternative methods of strengthening the jaw, such as distraction osteogenesis. However, methods of shortening of the jaw are not well-elucidated in oral and maxillofacial surgery practice. This study aims to investigate the efficacy of a new method of shortening osteotomized jaws. Methodology: A 2.5–3 cm skin incision was made on the left tibia of each of 15 New Zealand white rabbits aged 12–18 months, followed by fixation of 15 mm pre-opened distractor devices to the tibia after osteotomy. After a five-day latency period, the distractors were activated to a total of 8 mm, with closure of the device set at a rate of 0.25 mm/day in the test group. After a five-day latency period, the distractors closed at a rate of 0.125 mm/day, achieving a total contraction of 5 mm. The distractors were not activated in the control group. The bone at the contraction range was evaluated, and the resultant shortening was measured. Results: The tibia was shortened by an average of 4.32 mm. Exaggerated bone formation was identified around the osteotomized cortical bone in all rabbits in the control and study groups, and there were minimal complication rates. Conclusion: This study verified that the jaw can be shortened by performing slow, controlled contraction with a bone resorption pattern.

🔖

Cite This Article

ALKAN, A., KILIÇ, E., OCAK, H. (2022). Shortening of bones using novel contraction osteogenesis device: An experimental study. International Dental Research, Cilt: 11 - Sayı: Supplement 1, 26–31. https://ajindex.com/articles/539484

📄 Full Text PDF Viewer

📄

PDF görüntüleyici hazırlanıyor...

References (12)

  1. Yonehara Y, Takato T, Harii K, et al. Secondary lengthening of the reconstructed mandible using a gradual distraction technique--two case reports. Br J Plast Surg 1998; 51: 356-8. https://doi.org/10.1054/bjps.1997.0224. (Crossref
  2. Frierson M, Ibrahim K, Boles M, et al. Distraction osteogenesis. A comparison of corticotomy techniques. Clin Orthop Related Res 1994; 301: 19-24. (Crossref
  3. Lemperle SM, Calhoun CJ, Curran RW, et al. Bony healing of large cranial and mandibular defects protected from soft-tissue interposition: a comparative study of spontaneous bone regeneration, osteoconduction, and cancellous autografting in dogs. Plast Reconstr Surg 1998; 101: 660-72. (Crossref
  4. Rachmiel A, Levy M, Laufer D. Lengthening of the mandible by distraction osteogenesis: report of cases. J Oral Maxillofac Surg 1995; 53: 838-46. https://doi.org/10.1016/0278- 2391(95)90346-1. (Crossref
  5. Weil TS, Van Sickels JE, Payne CJ. Distraction osteogenesis for correction of transverse mandibular deficiency: a preliminary report. J Oral Maxillofac Surg 1997; 55: 953-60. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0278-2391(97)90069-0. (Crossref
  6. Block MS, Daire J, Stover J, et al. Changes in the inferior alveolar nerve following mandibular lengthening in the dog using distraction osteogenesis. J Oral Maxillofac Surg 1993; 51: 652-60. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0278-2391(10)80265-4. (Crossref
  7. Cope JB, Samchukov ML. Mineralization dynamics of regenerate bone during mandibular osteodistraction. Int J Oral Maxillofac Surg 2001; 30: 234-42.
  8. Reyneke JP. Distraction osteogenesis--the future? Br J Oral Maxillofac Surg 2001; 39: 180-1. https://doi.org/10.1054/bjom.2001.0674. (Crossref
  9. Swennen G, Schliephake H, Dempf R, et al. Craniofacial distraction osteogenesis: a review of the literature: Part 1: clinical studies. Int J Oral Maxillofac Surg 2001; 30: 89-103. https://doi.org/10.1054/ijom.2000.0033. (Crossref
  10. Komuro Y, Yanai A, Hayashi A, et al. Cranial reshaping employing distraction and contraction in the treatment of sagittal synostosis. Br J Plast Surg 2005; 58: 196-201. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.bjps.2004.06.034. (Crossref
  11. Li Y, Tian WD, Zhang ZJ, et al. Mandibular condensability and length contraction: an animal experimental study. 2004; 22: 16-8
  12. Alkan A, Kilic E, Ocak H, et al. Is it possible to shorten the jaws using contraction osteogenesis? J Oral Maxillofac Surg 2011; 69: 195-200. https://doi.org/10.1016/j