medigraphic.com
ISSN 1870-199X (Print)
Órgano oficial de la Facultad de Odontología, UNAM

2007, Number 2

<< Back Next >>

Rev Odont Mex 2007; 11 (2)

Determination in the differences between proportion of bone tissue and soft tissue in patients with hemifacial microsomy with simultaneous mandibular and maxillary osteogenic distraction

Ku CF, Aguilar SM, Yudovich BM, Ortiz MF, García LS, Elvira MA

Language: Spanish
References: 20
Page: 63-69
PDF size: 191.67 Kb.


ABSTRACT

A retrospective study was made in order to compare the differences between the proportions of bone tissue evaluated on posteroanterior cephalometries (combined Ricketts and Grummons frontal analysis), and the ones of soft tissues, evaluated on frontal photographies (easy image computerized program), after simultaneous mandibular and maxillary osteogenic distraction of twenty patients (10 females and 10 males) with hemifacial microsomia using records from January 1998 to January 2004 from patients treated at the Orthodontic Department in the Hospital General “Dr Manuel Gea González”, Of the 20 studied cases, the mean age was 19.1 years (range 12-33); in 15 cases the right side was the affected one (75%). Significant differences (p ‹ 0.05) were identified with the Wilcoxon test used to compare before and after proportions in the cephalometries and in the frontal photographies. While with the U of Mann-Whitney test applied no significant differences (p › 0.05) when posteroanterior cephalometries were compared versus frontal photographies. It was concluded that simultaneous mandibular and maxillary distraction osteogenesis produced elongation in both tissues but not in the same proportion due to the fact that facial asymmetries are not identical and have to be evaluated tridimensionally. Changes obtained in soft tissues are greater than those in bone tissues, therefore facial symmetry is clinically noticed first than in the cephalometries.


REFERENCES

  1. Yudovich BM. Distracción osteogénica en las anomalías craneofaciales. En: 100th Annual Session, 5th International Orthodontic Congress. Chicago, IL. 2000.

  2. Kaban L, Mulliken J, Murray J. Three dimensional approach to analysis and treatment of hemifacial microsomia. Cleft Palate Journal 1981; 2: 90-99.

  3. Ortiz-Monasterio F, Molina F. Mandibular distraction in hemifacial microsomia. Op Tech Plast Reconst Surg 1994; 1: 105-112.

  4. Meazzini MC, Figueroa AA, Polley JM. Maxillary changes in patients with hemifacial microsomia after mandibular distraction osteogenesis. The Craniofacial Center, University of Chicago. 2002.

  5. Poswillo DE. Otomandibular deformity: Pathogenesis as a guide to reconstruction. Journal Cranio Maxillofac Surg 1974; 2: 64-72.

  6. Cope J, Samchukov M, Cherkashin A. Mandibular distraction osteogenesis. A historic perspective and future directions. Am J Orthod Dentofac Orthop 1999; 115: 448-60.

  7. Mc Carthy J, Schreider J, Karp N. Lengthening the human mandible by gradual distraction. Plast and Reconstr Surg 1992; 89: 1.

  8. Molina F, Ortiz- Monasterio F. Mandibular elongation and remodeling by distraction: A farewell to major osteotomies, Plast and Reconstr Surg 1995; 96: 825-40.

  9. Samchukov M et al. Distraction osteogenesis: origins and evolution. In: Distraction osteogenesis and tissue engineering. Editado por James Mc Namara, Jr. The University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, 1998; 34: 1-30.

  10. Ortiz-Monasterio F, Molina F. Simultaneous mandibular and maxillary distraction in hemifacial microsomia in adults: avoiding occlusal disasters. Plast Reconstr Surg 1997; 100: 852-61.

  11. Romero WM. Evaluación cefalométrica de cambios esqueléticos y dentales en pacientes con microsomía hemifacial tratados con distracción simultánea maxilomandibular. Tesis para especialización en Ortodoncia. Hospital General “Dr. Manuel Gea González”. México, 1998.

  12. Ricketts RM, Bench RW, Hilgers JJ. An overview of computerized cephalometrics. Am J Orthod 1972; 61: 1-28.

  13. Grummons DC, Kappeyne van de Copello MA. A frontal asymmetry analysis. J Clin Orthod 1987; 21: 448-65.

  14. Comas J. Manual de antropología física. Universidad Nacional Autónoma de México. Instituto de Investigaciones Históricas. Sección de Antropología México, 1966.

  15. Easy imageTM (Techno Optik AB, Huddinge). Programa de computación. Sweden, 2003

  16. Tehranchi A et al. Facial symmetry after distraction osteogenesis and orthodontic therapy. Am J Orthod Dentofac Orthop 2001; 120: 149-153.

  17. Mc Carthy J et al. Distraction osteogenesis: of the mandible: A ten-year experience. Semin Orthod 1999; 5: 3-8.

  18. Ortiz-Monasterio F, Molina F. Simultaneous maxillomandibular distraction. In: Samchukov M, Editor. Craniofacial distraction osteogenesis. St. Louis, Mosby. 2001.

  19. Farkas LG et al. Vertical and horizontal proportions of the face in young adult north american caucasians: Revision of neoclassical canons. Plastic and Reconstructive Surgery 1985; 75: 328-37.

  20. Herrera M y cols. Relación entre plagiocefalia y mordida cruzada lateral. Revista Iberoamericana de Ortodoncia 1995; 14: 93-97.




2020     |     www.medigraphic.com