Atormac
Home  -  About us  -  Editorial board  -  Search  -  Ahead of print  -  Current issue  -  Archives  -  Instructions  -  Subscribe  -  Contacts  -  Advertise - Login 
 
 
     
ORIGINAL ARTICLE - COMPARATIVE STUDY
Year : 2012  |  Volume : 2  |  Issue : 2  |  Page : 127-130

Treatment of maxillary cleft palate: Distraction osteogenesis vs. orthognathic surgery


1 Department of Oral and Maxillofacial Surgery, Rambam Medical Center, Haifa, Israel
2 Unit of Orthodontic and Cleft Palate, Bruce Rappaport Faculty of Medicine, Technion-Israel Institute of Technology, Haifa, Israel

Correspondence Address:
Adi Rachmiel
Department of Oral and Maxillofacial Surgery, Rambam Medical Center, POB 9602, Haifa 31096
Israel
Login to access the Email id


DOI: 10.4103/2231-0746.101336

PMID: 23483803

Rights and Permissions

Purpose: The purpose of this paper is to compare the treatment of hypoplastic, retruded maxillary cleft palate using distraction osteogenesis vs. orthognathic surgery in terms of stability and relapse, growth after distraction and soft tissue profile changes.th Materials and Methods: The cleft patients showed anteroposterior maxillary hypoplasia with class III malocclusion and negative overjet resulting in a concave profile according to preoperative cephalometric measurements, dental relationship, and soft tissue analysis. The patients were divided in two groups of treatment : S0 eventeen were treated by orthognathic Le Fort I osteotomy fixed with four mini plates and 2 mm screws, and 19 were treated by maxillary distraction osteogenesis with rigid extraoral devices (RED) connected after a Le Fort I osteotomy. The rate of distraction was 1 mm per day to achieve Class I occlusion with slight overcorrection and to create facial profile convexity. Following a 10 week latency period the distraction devices were removed. Results: In the RED group the maxilla was advanced an average of 15.80 mm. The occlusion changed from class III to class I. The profile of the face changed from concave to convex. At a 1-year follow up the results were stable. The mean orthognathic movement was 8.4 mm. Conclusion: In mild maxillary deficiency a one stage orthognathic surgery is preferable. However, in patients requiring moderate to large advancements with significant structural deficiencies of the maxilla or in growing patients the distraction technique is preferred.


[FULL TEXT] [PDF]*
Print this article     Email this article
 Next article
 Previous article
 Table of Contents

 Similar in PUBMED
   Search Pubmed for
   Search in Google Scholar for
 Related articles
 Citation Manager
 Access Statistics
 Reader Comments
 Email Alert *
 Add to My List *
 * Requires registration (Free)
 

 Article Access Statistics
    Viewed6708    
    Printed119    
    Emailed3    
    PDF Downloaded1106    
    Comments [Add]    
    Cited by others 13    

Recommend this journal