The third dimension tomography versus cranial X-ray cephalometry to predict maxilla advance by distraction in maxilla hypoplastic

Arturo Rosas-Muñoz; Fernando Soriano-Padilla; Mario Enrique Rendón-Macías

2010, Number 3

<< Back Next >>

Rev Med Inst Mex Seguro Soc 2010; 48 (3)

The third dimension tomography versus cranial X-ray cephalometry to predict maxilla advance by distraction in maxilla hypoplastic

Rosas-Muñoz A, Soriano-Padilla F, Rendón-Macías ME

Full text

How to cite this article

Language: Spanish
References: 13
Page: 325-330
PDF size: 115.83 Kb.

ABSTRACT

Background: the osteogenic distraction is the treatment for the correction of the hypoplastic maxilla secondary to the repair of a cleft lip-palate. Its planning is based on articulated models. Our objective was to describe the accuracy of three-dimensional Cephalometry (CT3D) for projecting jaw displacement.
Methods: three patients with hypoplastic maxilla. Interventions estimation of the advance required of lateral maxilla through Cephalometry of skull (CLC), CT3D and an articulated model (gold standard). Two months after distraction finalized the advance predicted was compared.
Results: the error of the advance projection in each patient was smaller with the CT3D versus CLC (+1, +1 and +1 mm versus -10, -14 and -9mm). Corrections post-distraction were of +25 %, +26 % and +38.4 % on the programmed one. CT3D predicted better the correction (+19 %, +10.8 %, +33.4 % versus CLC: -50 %; -60.8 % and -34.6 %). Chewing alterations were not seen in any patient.
Conclusions: the planning of the necessary advance for distraction in patients with hypoplastic maxilla by CT3D can shorten the time of studies and should be consider as next to the projection of articulated model.

REFERENCES

Grabb WC, Smith JW. Plastic surgery. Fourth edition. USA: Little Brown and Company; 1991. p. 140- 165.
González-Landa G, Sánchez-Ruiz I, Prado C, Azcona Y, Sánchez C. Evolución de la cirugía pediátrica ambulatoria en un hospital público. Cir Mayor Ambul 1998;3(2):88-95.
Carlson BC. Cabeza y cuello. En: Carlson BC, editor. Embriología humana y biológica del desarrollo. Madrid: Harcourt; 2001. p. 295-301.
Gorlin RJ, Cohen MM, Hennekam RCM. Syndromes of the head and neck. Fourth edition. New York: Oxford University Press; 2001.
McCarthy JG, Stelnicki EJ, Mehrara BJ, Longaker MT. Distraction osteogenesis of the craniofacial Skeleton. Plast Reconstr Surg 2001;107(7):1812- 1827.
Samchukov ML, Cope JB, Cherkashin AM. Craniofacial distraction osteogenesis. St. Louis Missouri: Mosby; 2001. p. 150-200.
Pereira MA, Luiz de Freitas PH, da Rosa TF, Xavier CB. Understanding distraction osteogenesis on the maxillofacial complex: a literature review. J Oral Maxillofac Surg 2007;65(12):2518-2523.
Toledo MV. Cirugía ortognática: simplificación del tratamiento ortodóntico quirúrgico en adultos. Caracas, Venezuela: Actualidades Médico-Odontológicas Latinoamérica; 2004. p. 207-220.
Adams GL, Gansky SA, Miller AJ, Harrell WE, Hatcher DC. Comparison between traditional 2- dimensional cephalometry and a 3-dimensional approach on human dry skulls. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop 2004;126(4):397-409.
Zhang X, Hans MG, Graham G, Kirchner HL, Redline S. Correlations between cephalometric and facial photographic measurements of craniofacial form. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop 2007;131 (1):67-71.
Meyer U, Kleinheinz J, Joos U. Biomechanical and clinical implications of distraction osteo-genesis in craniofacial surgery. J Craniomaxillo-fac Surg 2004;32(3):140-149.
Bell WH. Modern practice in orthognathic and reconstructive surgery. Philadelphia: W.B. Saunders; 1992. p. 155-205.
Swennen GR, Schutyser F. Three-dimensional cephalometry: spiral multi-slice vs. cone-beam computed tomography. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop 2006;130(3):410-416.