Do position and soft tissue affect distraction vector? An in vitro investigation

Using orthodontic elastic traction during the active period of distraction osteogenesis to increase the effective vertical extension of hemifacial microsomia patients: A multi-center randomized clinical trial

In this study, the aim was to assess whether using elastic traction during the active period of distraction osteogenesis could effectively increase the vertical extension. Patients with Pruzansky-Kaban Type II mandibular deformity were recruited and randomly assigned into Elastic traction + Distraction Osteogenesis group or Distraction Osteogenesis group, respectively. During the active period, the experimental group received orthodontic elastic traction 3 days after distraction osteogenesis implantation, while the control group received no treatment. All the participants underwent computed tomography (CT) examination before surgery, at the end of the active period, 6 months and 2 years after distraction osteogenesis tractor implantation. The primary outcome was the effective vertical extension rate of the mandible from the baseline to the end of the active period after operations, and there were 7 secondary outcomes used. 70 patients were included. The effective vertical extension rates were 85.021% ± 7.432% (mean ± SD) and 68.811% ± 9.510% (mean ± SD) in the experimental and control groups, respectively (P = 0.001). The average distances between the lower middle incisor point to the sagittal plane at the end of the active period were 2.485 ± 1.411 mm and 3.938 ± 2.293 mm in the experimental and control groups, respectively (P = 0.026). At the end of the active period of distraction osteogenesis, the average values of the mandibular occlusal plane canting were -4.887 ± 3.126 mm and -0.177 ± 4.029 mm in the experimental and control groups, respectively (P = 0.026). Elastic traction-assisted distraction osteogenesis could improve traction efficiency and facial symmetry.

Comparative evaluation among different materials to replace soft tissue in oral radiology studies

Objective

The aim of this study was to establish which materials afford better simulation of soft tissues in Oral Radiology studies.

Material and Methods

The sample was composed of four materials in eleven different thicknesses to simulate the soft tissues of the face. The mean values of the relative amounts of radiographic contrast of the materials were determined and compared to a gold standard value, which was obtained from 20 patients who were referred to have periapical radiographs taken of the left mandibular molars. Data were subjected to statistical analysis with Dunnett's test (p<0.05).

Results

The mean value of the relative amounts of contrast encountered in the patients was 0.47, with a range between 0.36 and 0.64 for all 44 material/thickness combinations. The majority of the tested materials showed values close to those of the patients’ tissues, without statistically significant differences among them. The values of only three materials/ thickness combinations differed statistically from those of the patients’ tissues.

Conclusions

Based on the results of the present study, it may be concluded that except for utility wax (4 mm and 8 mm) and water (4 mm), all materials tested at different thickness could be used as soft tissue substitute materials in Oral Radiology studies.

Distraction osteogenesis: advancements in the last 10 years

Distraction is still evolving in the management of patients with orthopedic and craniomaxillofacial deformities. The relationship among latency, gap size, rate, rhythm, and duration of fixation is not totally understood for all of the individual patients and variations in their needs seen in a clinical practice. Numerous factors can influence the quality and quantity of bone seen with distraction, including the age and nutritional status of the patient and the type of distractor that is used.

Uniaxial mechanical strain: an in vitro correlate to distraction osteogenesis

BACKGROUND

Distraction osteogenesis is a valuable clinical tool; however the molecular mechanisms governing successful distraction remain unknown. We have used a uniaxial in vitro strain device to simulate the uniaxial mechanical environment of the interfragmentary distraction gap.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

Using the Flexcell system, normal human osteoblasts were subjected to different levels of cyclical uniaxial mechanical strain. Cellular morphology, proliferation, migration, and the expression of angiogenic (vascular endothelial growth factor [VEGF] and fibroblast growth factor-2 [FGF-2]) and osteogenic (osteonectin, osteopontin, and osteocalcin) proteins and extracellular matrix molecules (collagen IalphaII) were analyzed in response to uniaxial cyclic strain.

RESULTS

Osteoblasts exposed to strain assumed a fusiform spindle-shaped morphology aligning parallel to the axis of uniaxial strain and osteoblasts exposed to strain or conditioned media had a 3-fold increase in proliferation. Osteoblast migration was maximal (5-fold) in response to 9% strain. Angiogenic cytokine, VEGF, and FGF-2, increased 32-fold and 2.6-fold (P < 0.05), respectively. Osteoblasts expressed greater amounts of osteonectin, osteopontin, and osteocalcin (2.1-fold, 1.8-fold, 1.5-fold respectively, P < 0.01) at lower levels of strain (3%). Bone morphogenic protein-2 production increased maximally at 9% strain (1.6-fold, P < 0.01). Collagen I expression increased 13-, 66-, and 153-fold in response to 3, 6, and 9% strain, respectively.

CONCLUSIONS

Uniaxial cyclic strain using the Flexcell device under appropriate strain parameters provides a novel in vitro model that induces osteoblast cellular and molecular expression patterns that simulate patterns observed in the in vivo distraction gap.

Vector Alignment in Maxillary Distraction Osteogenesis

Maxillary distraction osteogenesis is an alternative treatment of cleft patients with severe maxillary hypoplasia. The aim of this paper is to present the combined surgical/orthodontic treatment of a cleft lip and palate patient and to evaluate the maxillary distraction procedure and the distraction vector in high Le Fort I osteotomy.

Distraction Osteogenesis of the Craniofacial Skeleton

LEARNING OBJECTIVES:: After studying this article, the participant should be able to: 1. Review the biomechanical principles and pertinent cellular and molecular biology of distraction osteogenesis of the craniofacial skeleton. 2. Describe the clinical indications and applications of distraction osteogenesis of the craniofacial skeleton. 3. Describe maxillary, mandibular, midface, and calvarial procedures in distraction osteogenesis. 4. Discuss the clinical outcomes and complications of distraction osteogenesis of the craniofacial skeleton.The year 2002 marked the end of the first decade in clinical distraction osteogenesis of the craniofacial skeleton. In this short period, its application has increased exponentially. More than 3000 cases have been performed according to a recent survey, and more than 700 articles have been written on this subject in the MEDLINE database since 1996. It is a powerful surgical tool and enables surgeons to achieve results not previously attainable. Despite all this, distraction osteogenesis is practiced by only a small number of plastic surgeons. This article reviews the biomechanical principles; the pertinent cellular and molecular biology; and the clinical indications, applications, controversies, and complications of distraction osteogenesis of the craniofacial skeleton.