A new 2-dimensional method for constructing Visualized Treatment Objectives for distraction osteogenesis of the short mandible
Introduction
Distraction osteogenesis of the mandible has a proven value in the treatment of severe craniofacial deformities. A myriad of distractor types is used. There are monodirectional, bidirectional, multidirectional and curvilinear distractors and distinction is made between extra-oral and intra-oral devices (Fig. 1). There are tooth-borne, bone-borne and hybrid distractors to gain mandibular length, dental arch length, or to widen the dental arch in the midline (Samchukov et al., 2001a, Samchukov et al., 2001b). Special distractors exist for ramus or body distraction. Currently, distraction is also applied to lengthen a short mandible in non-syndromic patients, as an alternative to a bilateral sagittal split osteotomy (BSSO). For this, monodirectional distractors are most commonly used, either for body lengthening, ramus lengthening or both. Proposed advantages would be: less nerve damage, fewer joint problems, greater advancement possibilities, better soft tissue adaptation and less relapse (Samchukov et al., 2001). All these advantages still require solid evidence, but the interest in the procedure seems to be growing (Peltomäki et al., 2002, Breuning et al., 2004a, Breuning et al., 2004b). Distraction osteogenesis of the mandible in Hemifacial Microsomia is deemed good practice, although some still doubt exists (Mommaerts and Nagy, 2002, Batra et al., 2006), but mandibular distraction in the non-syndromic patient is more controversial (Schreuder et al., 2007). In a recent extensive European survey, reported in this journal, a wide variety in treatment approaches to craniofacial anomalies was noted and disagreement with regard to ideal age for treatment, surgical technique, distraction device and retention period was pronounced (Nada et al., 2009). Consensus has been reached, though, on one serious disadvantage during distraction of a short mandible in non-syndromic patients: there is a strong tendency toward open bite development and facial height increase, to be counteracted only partly by strong intermaxillary elastics or a chin cup. For this reason, some clinicians prefer bidirectional or multidirectional distractors. Closure of the gonial angle might help to prevent an open bite. Still, functional and anatomical factors (tongue thrust, geniohyoid muscle traction) combined with flexibility of the distractors, render distraction less suitable for the open bite, long face patient (Breuning et al., 2004a, Breuning et al., 2004b). Sturdy distractors do not seem to solve the problem (Hoffmeister and Wangerin, 1997). However, it might be that incorrect placement of the device and the resulting direction (vector) of separation of the segments is to blame. In the literature, conflicting guidelines are presented without discussion (Grayson et al., 1997, Grayson and Santiago, 1999, Samchukov et al., 1999, Rubio-Bueno et al., 2001).
A cephalometric set-up or Visualized Treatment Objective (VTO) that is indispensable for the planning of orthognathic surgery is usually noticeably absent for mandibular advancement by distraction. With few exceptions, the planning of mandibular distraction is absent or poor with regard to distraction vectors. Since the treatment of severe facial convexity and open bite tendency is complex in any approach, it seems worthwhile to try and find possible solutions to this drawback of mandibular lengthening by distraction, that otherwise appears to be an effective procedure.
Section snippets
Open bite and mandibular distraction
An inventory was made of the most relevant factors that lead to open bite during distraction of the mandible.
In the literature, very few articles were found that address the vectors of mandibular distraction (Losken et al., 1995, Grayson et al., 1997, Grayson and Santiago, 1999, Gateno et al., 2000, Rubio-Bueno et al., 2001, Scolozzi et al., 2007). Open bite development during mandibular distraction is encountered by most authors and the origin is considered to be multifactorial. Apart from the
Discussion
Mandibular lengthening by distraction osteogenesis might have advantages over BSSO (less nerve damage, less joint problems, greater advancement possibilities, better soft tissue adaptation and less relapse). Moreover, mandibular distraction in non-syndromic patients could be applied to individuals that are still growing since the growth potential of the mandible in these patients is expected to be normal (Baccetti et al., 2009). However, problems arise in the same category of patients that is
Conclusions
- •
Open bite development is a problem during mandibular distraction osteogenesis.
- •
Intermaxillary elastics provide little control.
- •
Deep bite cases are the least problematic.
- •
Sturdy distractors that increase ramus height may alleviate the open bite problem.
- •
High quality Presurgical Orthodontics to coordinate the arches is needed.
- •
Fully adjustable distractors are no substitute for distraction planning.
- •
For non-syndrome cases, a simple 2-dimensional VTO is probably sufficient, both for monodirectional and
References (23)
- et al.
Dentofacial growth changes in subjects with untreated Class II malocclusion from late puberty through young adulthood
Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop
(2009 Feb) - et al.
The overbite and intraoral mandibular distraction osteogenesis
J Craniomaxillofac Surg
(April 2004) - et al.
Outcome of treatment of Class II malocclusion by intraoral mandibular distraction
Br J Oral Maxillofac Surg
(Dec 2004) - et al.
Intraoral distraction for mandibular lengthening: a technical innovation
J Craniomaxillofac Surg
(April 1996) - et al.
Treatment planning and biomechanics of distraction osteogenesis from an orthodontic perspective
Semin Orthod
(1999) - et al.
Callus distraction technique by an intraoral approach: the floating bone concept
J Craniomaxillofac Surg
(1997) - et al.
Vector control in lower jaw distraction osteogenesis using an extra-oral multidirectional device
J Craniomaxillofac Surg
(2001) - et al.
Surgical risk factors for condylar resorption after orthognathic surgery
Oral Surg Oral Med Oral Pathol Oral Radiol Endod
(May 2000) - et al.
Is early osteodistraction a solution for the ascending ramus compartment in hemifacial microsomia? A literature study
J Craniomaxillofac Surg
(2002 Aug) - et al.
Intraoral mandibular distraction osteogenesis: special attention to treatment planning
J Craniomaxillofac Surg
(October 2001)
The effect of sagittal orientation of the distractor on the biomechanics of mandibular lengthening
J Oral Maxillofac Surg
Cited by (2)
Maxillary-driven simultaneous maxillo-mandibular distraction for hemifacial microsomia
2011, Journal of Cranio-Maxillofacial SurgeryCitation Excerpt :This can cause social problems, particularly for children and adolescents who may experience social problems at school during active treatment (Scolozzi et al., 2006; Padwa et al., 1999). To overcome these problems, small internal distraction devices have been developed and used (Satoh et al., 2002; Padwa et al., 1999; Scolozzi et al., 2006; van Beek, 2010). There is evidence in the literature that combined maxillo-mandibular distraction can be performed using two independent distractors (Scolozzi et al., 2006).