Adoración Martínez Plaza , Mario Menéndez Núñez , Ildefonso Martínez Lara , José Fernández Solís , Pablo Gálvez Jiménez , Fernando Monsalve Iglesias
{"title":"上颌前移在腭裂患者口腔内牵张中的应用","authors":"Adoración Martínez Plaza , Mario Menéndez Núñez , Ildefonso Martínez Lara , José Fernández Solís , Pablo Gálvez Jiménez , Fernando Monsalve Iglesias","doi":"10.1016/j.maxile.2014.01.001","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<div><h3>Introduction</h3><p>Patients with cleft lip and palate usually present with maxillary hypoplasia. Upper jaw intraoral distraction osteogenesis (DO) is an alternative technique for patients with severe maxillary hypoplasia. An evaluation was made of the changes produced in hard and soft tissues and their stability over time.</p></div><div><h3>Material and methods</h3><p>Six patients (5 female and 1 male) between 16 and 25 years old with cleft lip and palate underwent maxillary DO with an internal distractor. An evaluation was made of the skeletal and soft tissues changes using cephalometric studies with radiographs and photographs. Follow-up time was between 2 and 8 years.</p></div><div><h3>Results</h3><p>There was Point A advancement between 3 and 10<!--> <!-->mm in 5 patients, significantly improving maxillomandibular relationships. Intraoral DO failed in one patient, and the case was finished using rigid external distraction (RED). In another patient hardly any advancement and maxillary rotation was observed. The relapse observed between 6 and 9 months post DO was between 10 and 15% in both skeletal and soft tissues.</p></div><div><h3>Conclusions</h3><p>Intraoral DO is a successful alternative technique in maxillary advancement in patients with cleft lip and palate who need an advancement less than 10<!--> <!-->mm. It produces improvements in the skeletal and soft profile. Internal devices do not have any psychological impact and have longer consolidation phases. Relapse is difficult to determine and calculate.</p></div>","PeriodicalId":101108,"journal":{"name":"Revista Espa?ola de Cirugía Oral y Maxilofacial (English Edition)","volume":"37 3","pages":"Pages 123-131"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2015-07-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.1016/j.maxile.2014.01.001","citationCount":"4","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Maxillary advancement in cleft palate patients with intraoral distraction\",\"authors\":\"Adoración Martínez Plaza , Mario Menéndez Núñez , Ildefonso Martínez Lara , José Fernández Solís , Pablo Gálvez Jiménez , Fernando Monsalve Iglesias\",\"doi\":\"10.1016/j.maxile.2014.01.001\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<div><h3>Introduction</h3><p>Patients with cleft lip and palate usually present with maxillary hypoplasia. Upper jaw intraoral distraction osteogenesis (DO) is an alternative technique for patients with severe maxillary hypoplasia. An evaluation was made of the changes produced in hard and soft tissues and their stability over time.</p></div><div><h3>Material and methods</h3><p>Six patients (5 female and 1 male) between 16 and 25 years old with cleft lip and palate underwent maxillary DO with an internal distractor. An evaluation was made of the skeletal and soft tissues changes using cephalometric studies with radiographs and photographs. Follow-up time was between 2 and 8 years.</p></div><div><h3>Results</h3><p>There was Point A advancement between 3 and 10<!--> <!-->mm in 5 patients, significantly improving maxillomandibular relationships. Intraoral DO failed in one patient, and the case was finished using rigid external distraction (RED). In another patient hardly any advancement and maxillary rotation was observed. The relapse observed between 6 and 9 months post DO was between 10 and 15% in both skeletal and soft tissues.</p></div><div><h3>Conclusions</h3><p>Intraoral DO is a successful alternative technique in maxillary advancement in patients with cleft lip and palate who need an advancement less than 10<!--> <!-->mm. It produces improvements in the skeletal and soft profile. Internal devices do not have any psychological impact and have longer consolidation phases. Relapse is difficult to determine and calculate.</p></div>\",\"PeriodicalId\":101108,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Revista Espa?ola de Cirugía Oral y Maxilofacial (English Edition)\",\"volume\":\"37 3\",\"pages\":\"Pages 123-131\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2015-07-01\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.1016/j.maxile.2014.01.001\",\"citationCount\":\"4\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Revista Espa?ola de Cirugía Oral y Maxilofacial (English Edition)\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2386401X1500016X\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"\",\"JCRName\":\"\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Revista Espa?ola de Cirugía Oral y Maxilofacial (English Edition)","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2386401X1500016X","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
Maxillary advancement in cleft palate patients with intraoral distraction
Introduction
Patients with cleft lip and palate usually present with maxillary hypoplasia. Upper jaw intraoral distraction osteogenesis (DO) is an alternative technique for patients with severe maxillary hypoplasia. An evaluation was made of the changes produced in hard and soft tissues and their stability over time.
Material and methods
Six patients (5 female and 1 male) between 16 and 25 years old with cleft lip and palate underwent maxillary DO with an internal distractor. An evaluation was made of the skeletal and soft tissues changes using cephalometric studies with radiographs and photographs. Follow-up time was between 2 and 8 years.
Results
There was Point A advancement between 3 and 10 mm in 5 patients, significantly improving maxillomandibular relationships. Intraoral DO failed in one patient, and the case was finished using rigid external distraction (RED). In another patient hardly any advancement and maxillary rotation was observed. The relapse observed between 6 and 9 months post DO was between 10 and 15% in both skeletal and soft tissues.
Conclusions
Intraoral DO is a successful alternative technique in maxillary advancement in patients with cleft lip and palate who need an advancement less than 10 mm. It produces improvements in the skeletal and soft profile. Internal devices do not have any psychological impact and have longer consolidation phases. Relapse is difficult to determine and calculate.