Advertisement

Mandibular Distraction, Orthodontic Considerations

  • Pradip R. ShetyeEmail author
  • Barry H. Grayson
Chapter

Abstract

Mandibular distraction has been successfully used to correct mandibular hypoplasia in all three dimensions since its introduction in 1989 by McCarthy and NYU colleagues [1]. Patients with craniofacial microsomia, Nager syndrome, Treacher Collins syndrome, Robin sequence, temporomandibular joint ankylosis, posttraumatic growth disturbances, and a variety of other mandibular developmental disturbances have significantly benefited from this technique. As with traditional orthognathic surgery, pre- and post-distraction orthodontic therapy is an integral part of the successful outcome of distraction. The goals of pre- and post-distraction orthodontics therapy include the following: preoperative evaluation of the craniofacial skeletal and dental relationships, preparation of the dentition prior to the placement of a distraction device, collaboration with the surgeon on the placement of the distraction device for the optimal vector of distraction, monitoring of the skeletal changes during the activation phase, molding of the generate during the activation and consolidation phase, the management of post-distraction occlusion for long-term stability, and continued longitudinal follow-up.

Keywords

Open Bite Occlusal Plane Consolidation Phase Device Placement Bite Block 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.

References

  1. 1.
    McCarthy JG, et al. Lengthening the human mandible by gradual distraction. Plast Reconstr Surg. 1992;89(1):1–8; discussion 9–10.Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Davidson EH, et al. The evolution of mandibular distraction: device selection. Plast Reconstr Surg. 126(6):2061–70.Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Grayson BH, Santiago PE. Treatment planning and biomechanics of distraction osteogenesis from an orthodontic perspective. Semin Orthod. 1999;5(1):9–24.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Dec W, et al. The importance of vector selection in preoperative planning of unilateral mandibular distraction. Plast Reconstr Surg. 2008;121(6):2084–92; discussion 2093–4.Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Vendittelli BL, et al. The importance of vector selection in preoperative planning of bilateral mandibular distraction. Plast Reconstr Surg. 2008;122(4):1144–53.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Vendittelli BL. Moldability of the callus after distraction osteogenesis. J Oral Maxillofac Surg. 2000;58(7):828.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    McCarthy JG, et al. Molding of the regenerate in mandibular distraction: clinical experience. Plast Reconstr Surg. 2003;112(5):1239–46.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Peltomaki T, et al. Moulding of the generate to control open bite during mandibular distraction osteogenesis. Eur J Orthod. 2002;24(6):639–45.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Shetye PR, et al. Long-term stability and growth following unilateral mandibular distraction in growing children with craniofacial microsomia. Plast Reconstr Surg. 2006;118(4):985–95.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Weichman K, et al. Early distraction for mild to moderate unilateral craniofacial microsomia (UCFM): long-term follow-up outcomes and recommendations. Plast Reconstr Surg. 2017;139(4):941e–53e.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer International Publishing AG 2017

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Wyss Department of Plastic SurgeryNYU Langone Medical CenterNew YorkUSA

Personalised recommendations