Distraction of the Maxilla (Le Fort I)

  • James P. BradleyEmail author


A Le Fort I osteotomy with maxillary advancement can be used to correct Class III malocclusion that is related to congenital or developmental maxillary hypoplasia. A Le Fort I osteotomy combined with distraction osteogenesis is a powerful technique that can be used to treat the most severe forms of maxillary hypoplasia [1]. It also offers the benefits of functional airway improvement. Le Fort I distraction advancement may improve obstructive sleep apnea or aid in the removal of a long-standing tracheostomy [2, 3]. It is a technique that may be performed before skeletal maturity or during childhood, after the maxillary canines have erupted. Traditional acute Le Fort I advancement is usually performed after skeletal maturity [4]. Performing a Le Fort I distraction can correct a child’s facial deformity and may be important for his/her psychological well-being and self-confidence. Following a Le Fort I distraction during childhood, the subsequent need for a Le Fort I advancement at skeletal maturity may often be avoided. The importance of orthodontic involvement and preciese treatment planning cannot be overemphasized. This chapter will document the indications, techniques, instrumentation, and postoperative care involved with Le Fort I distraction.


Obstructive Sleep Apnea Skeletal Maturity Maxillary Canine Distraction Device Cleft Patient 
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.


  1. 1.
    Bradley JP. Craniofacial distraction osteogenesis. In: Thaller S, Bradley CP, Gari JI, editors. Craniofacial surgery. New York: CRC Press; 2007.Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Taylor BA, Brace M, Hong P. Upper airway outcomes following midface distraction osteogenesis: a systemic review. J Plast Reconstr Aesthet Surg. 2014;67:891–9.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Gokce SM, Gorgulu S, Karacayli U, Gokce HS, Battal B. Three-dimensional evaluation of nasal and pharyngeal airway after Le Fort I maxillary distraction osteogenesis. Int J Oral Maxillofac Surg. 2015;44:455–61.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Buchanan EP, Hyman CH, Le Fort I. Osteotomy. Semin Plast Surg. 2013;27:149–54.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Kumar A, Gabbay JS, Nikjoo R, Heller JB, O’Hara CM, Sisodia M, Garri JI, Wilson LS, Kawamoto Jr HK, Bradley JP. Improved outcomes in cleft patients with severe maxillary deficiency after Le Fort I internal distraction. Plast Reconstr Surg. 2006;117:1499.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Rosen HM, Treatment planning: the role of facial disproportion. In: Rosen HM, editors. Aesthetic perspectives in jaw surgery, New York, Springer, 1997.Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Polley JW, Figueroa AA. Management of severe maxillary deficiency in childhood and adolescence through distraction osteogenesis with an external, adjustable, rigid distraction device. J Craniofac Surg. 1997;8:181.Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Dua G, Navin Kumar A, Roy ID, Roy SK. Maxillary distraction osteogenesis in cleft lip and palate cases with midface hypoplasia using rigid external distractor: an alternative technique. J Craniofac Surg. 2014;25(3):746–51.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Proffit WR, Phillips C, Turvey TA. Stability following superior repositioning of the maxilla by Le Fort I osteotomy. Am J Orthod Dentofac Orthop. 1987;92:151.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Witzel MA, Munro IR. Velopharyngeal insufficiency after maxillary advancement. Cleft Palate J. 1977;14:176.PubMedGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer International Publishing AG 2017

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Temple UniversityPhiladelphiaUSA

Personalised recommendations