Biomechanical comparison of two intraoperative mobilization techniques for maxillary distraction osteogenesis:
Lili Yang1, Eduardo Yugo Suzuki1, Boonsiva Suzuki1
1Department of Orthodontics and Pediatric Dentistry, Faculty of Dentistry, Chiang Mai University, Chiang Mai, Thailand.
Purposes:
The purpose of this study was to compare the distraction forces and the biomechanical effects between two different intraoperative surgical procedures (down-fracture [DF] and non-DF [NDF]) for maxillary distraction osteogenesis.
Materials And Methods:
Eight patients were assigned into two groups according to the surgical procedure: DF, n = 6 versus NDF, n = 2. Lateral cephalograms taken preoperatively (T1), immediately after removal of the distraction device (T2), and after at least a 6 months follow-up period (T3) were analyzed. Assessment of distraction forces was performed during the distraction period. The Mann-Whitney U-test was used to compare the difference in the amount of advancement, the maximum distraction force and the amount of relapse.
Results:
Although a significantly greater amount of maxillary movement was observed in the DF group (median 9.5 mm; minimum-maximum 7.9-14.1 mm) than in the NDF group (median 5.9 mm; minimum-maximum 4.4-7.6 mm), significantly lower maximum distraction forces were observed in the DF (median 16.4 N; minimum-maximum 15.1-24.6 N) than in the NDF (median 32.9 N; minimum-maximum 27.6-38.2 N) group. A significantly greater amount of dental anchorage loss was observed in the NDF group. Moreover, the amount of relapse observed in the NDF group was approximately 3.5 times greater than in the DF group.
Conclusions:
In this study, it seemed that, the use of the NDF procedure resulted in lower levels of maxillary mobility at the time of the maxillary distraction, consequently requiring greater amounts of force to advance the maxillary bone. Moreover, it also resulted in a reduced amount of maxillary movement, a greater amount of dental anchorage loss and poor treatment stability.
