Flores-Espinosa JA, Romero-Flores J

Language: Spanish
References: 16
Page: 659-664
PDF size: 128.31 Kb.

ABSTRACT

Mandibular continuity can be lost due to several factors, whatever the cause, the restitution of the anatomy is important for aesthetic and functional purposes. Nowadays a great amount of graft techniques are available, some of them had shown to be successful in a lot of cases, nevertheless the osteogenic distraction should be considered as an alternative procedure to mandibular reconstruction. The osteogenic distraction can offer some advantages like a short surgical time, low morbidity, avoidance of the risk of graft rejection and also less vascular problems. Some of the disadvantages associated to this technique are that patients must require longer follow-up periods, also require a greater patient cooperation and finally, a risk of deviation of the distraction vector is also present, this kind of complication can implicate the necessity to place on an external orthopedic device. An adequate management requires knowledge of both the bony biology and the possible biomechanical implications. A suitable planning of the osteogenic distraction procedure in combination with physical and psychological training of the patient can produce good aesthetic and functional results.

REFERENCES

1. Li Z, Zhao Y, Yao S, Zhao J, Yu S, Zhang W. Immediate reconstruction of mandibular defects: a retrospective report of 242 cases. J Oral Maxillofac Surg 2007;65(5):883-890.

2. Peterson LJ. Principles of oral and maxillofacial surgery. Second edition. Hamilton, Ontario, Canada: Decker; 2004.

3. Bell WH. Modern practice in orthognatic and reconstructive surgery. Philadelphia: WB Saunders Company; 1992.

4. Martínez-Villalobos Castillo S. Osteosíntesis craneomaxilofacial. México: Panamericana; 2002.

5. Ward Booth P, Eppley BL, Schmelzeisen R. Traumatismos maxilofaciales y reconstrucción facial estética. Madrid: Elsevier; 2005.

6. Samchukov ML, Cope JB, Cherkashin AM. Craniofacial distracción osteogénesis. USA: Mosby; 2001.

7. Djasim UM, Wolvius EB, Van Neck JW, Van Wamel A, Weinans H, Van Der Wal KG. Single versus triple daily activation of the distractor: No significant effects of frequency of distraction on bone regenerate quantity and architecture J Craniomaxillofac Surg 2008;36(3):143-151.

8. Bouletreau PJ, Warren SM, Longaker MT. The molecular biology of distraction osteogenesis. J Craniomaxillofac Surg 2002;30(1):1-11.

9. Byun JH, Park BW, Kim JR, Lee JH. Expression of vascular endothelial growth factor and its receptors after mandibular distraction osteogenesis. Int J Oral Maxillofac Surg 2007;36(4):338-344.

10. Meyer U, Kleinheinz J, Joos U. Biomechanical and clinical implications of distraction osteogenesis in craniofacial surgery. J Craniomaxillofac Surg 2004;32(2):140-149.

11. Wei S, Scadeng M, Yamashita DD, Pollack H, Faridi O, Tran B, et al. Manipulating the mandibular distraction site at different stages of consolidation. J Oral Maxillofac Surg 2007;65(5):840-846.

12. Bell W, Guerrero C. Distraction osteogenesis of the facial skeleton. Hamilton, Ontario, Canada: Decker; 2007.

13. Takahashi T, Fukuda M, Aiba T, Funaki K, Ohnuki T, Kondoh T. Distraction osteogenesis for reconstruction after mandibular segmental resection. Oral Surg Oral Med Oral Pathol Oral Radiol Endod 2002;93(1):21-26.

14. Rachmiel A. Treatment of maxillary cleft palate: distraction osteogenesis versus orthognathic surgery-part one: maxillary distraction. J Oral Maxillofac Surg 2007;65(4):753-757.

15. Troulis MJ, Kaban LB. Complications of mandibular distraction osteogenesis. Oral Maxillofac Surg Clin North Am 2003;15(2):251-264.

16. van Strijen PJ, Breuning KH, Becking, Perdijk DMD, Tuinzing DB. Complications in bilateral mandibular distraction osteogenesis using internal devices. Oral Surg Oral Med Oral Pathol Oral Radiol Endod 2003;96(4):392- 397.