Download PDF
Facial Plast Surg 2021; 37(06): 751-758
DOI: 10.1055/s-0041-1727248
Original Article

Distraction Osteogenesis: Mandible and Maxilla

Rami P. Dibbs
1   Division of Plastic Surgery, Michael E. DeBakey Department of Surgery, Baylor College of Medicine, Houston, Texas
2   Division of Plastic Surgery, Texas Children's Hospital, Houston, Texas
,
Andrew M. Ferry
1   Division of Plastic Surgery, Michael E. DeBakey Department of Surgery, Baylor College of Medicine, Houston, Texas
2   Division of Plastic Surgery, Texas Children's Hospital, Houston, Texas
,
Shayan M. Sarrami
1   Division of Plastic Surgery, Michael E. DeBakey Department of Surgery, Baylor College of Medicine, Houston, Texas
2   Division of Plastic Surgery, Texas Children's Hospital, Houston, Texas
,
Amjed Abu-Ghname
1   Division of Plastic Surgery, Michael E. DeBakey Department of Surgery, Baylor College of Medicine, Houston, Texas
,
Robert F. Dempsey
1   Division of Plastic Surgery, Michael E. DeBakey Department of Surgery, Baylor College of Medicine, Houston, Texas
2   Division of Plastic Surgery, Texas Children's Hospital, Houston, Texas
,
Edward P. Buchanan
1   Division of Plastic Surgery, Michael E. DeBakey Department of Surgery, Baylor College of Medicine, Houston, Texas
2   Division of Plastic Surgery, Texas Children's Hospital, Houston, Texas
› Author Affiliations
› Further Information
    Permissions and Reprints

Abstract

Mandibular and maxillary deformities commonly require surgical intervention. Prior to distraction osteogenesis, traditional modalities involving single-staged translocation and rigid fixation were used to correct these craniofacial anomalies. Distraction osteogenesis has evolved as a compelling alternative for treating aesthetic and functional dentofacial defects. The process of distraction osteogenesis involves three phases—latency, activation, and consolidation—which allow for appropriate translation of the affected craniofacial skeleton. This review will cover the role of distraction for managing congenital and acquired deformities of the mandible and maxilla. This novel technique can be performed at numerous anatomical sites along the craniofacial skeleton to treat a variety of anomalies, which serves as a testament to its adaptability and efficacy. Importantly, distraction osteogenesis also has the ability to simultaneously increase bone length and the overlying soft tissue envelope. This advantage results in larger advancements with reduced relapse rates and improved patient satisfaction. While complications remain a concern, it stands to reason that the measurable benefits observed underscore the power and versatility of distraction osteogenesis.

Keywords

mandibular distraction osteogenesis - maxillary distraction osteogenesis - distraction - craniofacial advancement - mandible - maxilla - orthognathic surgery


Publication History

Article published online:
03 May 2021

© 2021. Thieme. All rights reserved.

Thieme Medical Publishers, Inc.
333 Seventh Avenue, 18th Floor, New York, NY 10001, USA

 

  • References

  • 1 Yu JC, Fearon J, Havlik RJ, Buchman SR, Polley JW. Distraction osteogenesis of the craniofacial skeleton. Plast Reconstr Surg 2004; 114 (01) 1E-20E
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 2 Ow A, Cheung LK. Bilateral sagittal split osteotomies and mandibular distraction osteogenesis: a randomized controlled trial comparing skeletal stability. Oral Surg Oral Med Oral Pathol Oral Radiol Endod 2010; 109 (01) 17-23
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 3 Tahiri Y, Taylor J. An update on midface advancement using Le Fort II and III distraction osteogenesis. Semin Plast Surg 2014; 28 (04) 184-192
    Article in Thieme ConnectPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 4 Ilizarov GA. The principles of the Ilizarov method. 1988. Bull Hosp Jt Dis 1997; 56 (01) 49-53
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 5 Winters R, Tatum SA. Craniofacial distraction osteogenesis. Facial Plast Surg Clin North Am 2014; 22 (04) 653-664
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 6 Al-Namnam NMN, Hariri F, Rahman ZAA. Distraction osteogenesis in the surgical management of syndromic craniosynostosis: a comprehensive review of published papers. Br J Oral Maxillofac Surg 2018; 56 (05) 353-366
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 7 Glowacki J, Shusterman EM, Troulis M, Holmes R, Perrott D, Kaban LB. Distraction osteogenesis of the porcine mandible: histomorphometric evaluation of bone. Plast Reconstr Surg 2004; 113 (02) 566-573
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 8 Hollier Jr LH, Higuera S, Stal S, Taylor TD. Distraction rate and latency: factors in the outcome of pediatric mandibular distraction. Plast Reconstr Surg 2006; 117 (07) 2333-2336
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 9 Mofid MM, Manson PN, Robertson BC, Tufaro AP, Elias JJ, Vander Kolk CA. Craniofacial distraction osteogenesis: a review of 3278 cases. Plast Reconstr Surg 2001; 108 (05) 1103-1114 , discussion 1115–1117
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 10 McCarthy JG, Schreiber J, Karp N, Thorne CH, Grayson BH. Lengthening the human mandible by gradual distraction. Plast Reconstr Surg 1992; 89 (01) 1-8 , discussion 9–10
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 11 Sahoo NK, Issar Y, Thakral A. Mandibular distraction osteogenesis. J Craniofac Surg 2019; 30 (08) e743-e746
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 12 Khansa I, Hall C, Madhoun LL. et al. Airway and feeding outcomes of mandibular distraction, tongue-lip adhesion, and conservative management in Pierre Robin sequence: a prospective study. Plast Reconstr Surg 2017; 139 (04) 975e-983e
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 13 Al-Moraissi EA, Ellis III E. Bilateral sagittal split ramus osteotomy versus distraction osteogenesis for advancement of the retrognathic mandible. J Oral Maxillofac Surg 2015; 73 (08) 1564-1574
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 14 Chen W, Davidson EH, MacIsaac ZM, Kumar A. Mapping the mandibular lingula in Pierre Robin sequence: a guide to the inverted-L osteotomy. J Craniofac Surg 2015; 26 (06) 1847-1852
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 15 Caron CJJM, Pluijmers BI, Maas BDPJ. et al. Obstructive sleep apnoea in craniofacial microsomia: analysis of 755 patients. Int J Oral Maxillofac Surg 2017; 46 (10) 1330-1337
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 16 Converse JM, Coccaro PJ, Becker M, Wood-Smith D. On hemifacial microsomia. The first and second branchial arch syndrome. Plast Reconstr Surg 1973; 51 (03) 268-279
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 17 Pruzansky S. Not all dwarfed mandibles are alike. Birth Defects 1969; 5: 120-129
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 18 Kaban LB, Moses MH, Mulliken JB. Surgical correction of hemifacial microsomia in the growing child. Plast Reconstr Surg 1988; 82 (01) 9-19
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 19 Dong E, Dempsey RF, Wirthlin JO, Buchanan EP. Cranial anchored mandible distraction osteogenesis. J Craniofac Surg 2019; 30 (02) e183-e186
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 20 Shih L, Davis MJ, Sequitin J. et al. Airway obstruction management with mandibular distraction and Matthews device in Pruzansky III craniofacial microsomia. J Craniofac Surg 2020; 31 (03) e277-e280
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 21 Polley JW, Girotto JA, Fahrenkopf MP. et al. Salvage or solution: alloplastic reconstruction in hemifacial microsomia. Cleft Palate Craniofac J 2019; 56 (07) 896-901
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 22 Mittal N, Goyal M, Sardana D, Dua JS. Outcomes of surgical management of TMJ ankylosis: a systematic review and meta-analysis. J Craniomaxillofac Surg 2019; 47 (07) 1120-1133
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 23 Kaban LB, Bouchard C, Troulis MJ. A protocol for management of temporomandibular joint ankylosis in children. J Oral Maxillofac Surg 2009; 67 (09) 1966-1978
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 24 Xiao E, Zhang Y, An J, Li J, Yan Y. Long-term evaluation of the stability of reconstructed condyles by transport distraction osteogenesis. Int J Oral Maxillofac Surg 2012; 41 (12) 1490-1494
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 25 Raoul G, Wojcik T, Ferri J. Outcome of mandibular symphyseal distraction osteogenesis with bone-borne devices. J Craniofac Surg 2009; 20 (02) 488-493
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 26 Seeberger R, Kater W, Davids R. et al. Changes in the mandibular and dento-alveolar structures by the use of tooth borne mandibular symphyseal distraction devices. J Craniomaxillofac Surg 2011; 39 (03) 177-181
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 27 Alkan A, Özer M, Baş B. et al. Mandibular symphyseal distraction osteogenesis: review of three techniques. Int J Oral Maxillofac Surg 2007; 36 (02) 111-117
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 28 Cohen SR, Burstein FD, Stewart MB, Rathburn MA. Maxillary-midface distraction in children with cleft lip and palate: a preliminary report. Plast Reconstr Surg 1997; 99 (05) 1421-1428
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 29 Dua G, Navin Kumar A, Roy ID, Roy SK. Maxillary distraction osteogenesis in cleft lip and palate cases with midface hypoplasia using rigid external distractor: an alternative technique. J Craniofac Surg 2014; 25 (03) 746-751
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 30 Kumar A, Gabbay JS, Nikjoo R. et al. Improved outcomes in cleft patients with severe maxillary deficiency after Le Fort I internal distraction. Plast Reconstr Surg 2006; 117 (05) 1499-1509
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 31 Buchanan EP, Hyman CH. LeFort I osteotomy. Semin Plast Surg 2013; 27 (03) 149-154
    Article in Thieme ConnectPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 32 Steinbacher DM. Three-dimensional analysis and surgical planning in craniomaxillofacial surgery. J Oral Maxillofac Surg 2015; 73 (12, Suppl): S40-S56
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 33 Yu H, Dai J, Wang X, Zhang W, Shen SG. Le Fort II midfacial distraction combined with orthognathic surgery in the treatment of nasomaxillary hypoplasia. J Craniofac Surg 2014; 25 (03) e241-e244
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 34 Cheung LK, Lo J. Distraction of Le Fort II osteotomy by intraoral distractor: a case report. J Oral Maxillofac Surg 2006; 64 (05) 856-860
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 35 Hopper RA, Kapadia H, Morton T. Normalizing facial ratios in Apert syndrome patients with Le Fort II midface distraction and simultaneous zygomatic repositioning. Plast Reconstr Surg 2013; 132 (01) 129-140
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 36 Hopper RA, Kapadia H, Susarla SM. Le Fort II distraction with zygomatic repositioning: a technique for differential correction of midface hypoplasia. J Oral Maxillofac Surg 2018; 76 (09) 2002.e1-2002.e14
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 37 Bouw FP, Nout E, van Bezooijen JS, Koudstaal MJ, Veenland JF, Wolvius EB. Three-dimensional position changes of the midface following Le Fort III advancement in syndromic craniosynostosis. J Craniomaxillofac Surg 2015; 43 (06) 820-824
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 38 Gibson TL, Grayson BH, McCarthy JG, Shetye PR. Proptosis correction in pre-adolescent patients with syndromic craniosynostosis by Le Fort III distraction osteogenesis. J Craniofac Surg 2018; 29 (06) 1535-1541
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 39 Wery MF, Nada RM, van der Meulen JJ, Wolvius EB, Ongkosuwito EM. Three-dimensional computed tomographic evaluation of Le Fort III distraction osteogenesis with an external device in syndromic craniosynostosis. Br J Oral Maxillofac Surg 2015; 53 (03) 285-291
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 40 Shetye PR, Davidson EH, Sorkin M, Grayson BH, McCarthy JG. Evaluation of three surgical techniques for advancement of the midface in growing children with syndromic craniosynostosis. Plast Reconstr Surg 2010; 126 (03) 982-994
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 41 Witherow H, Dunaway D, Evans R. et al. Functional outcomes in monobloc advancement by distraction using the rigid external distractor device. Plast Reconstr Surg 2008; 121 (04) 1311-1322
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 42 Bradley JP, Gabbay JS, Taub PJ. et al. Monobloc advancement by distraction osteogenesis decreases morbidity and relapse. Plast Reconstr Surg 2006; 118 (07) 1585-1597
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 43 Way BLM, Khonsari RH, Karunakaran T. et al. Correcting exorbitism by monobloc frontofacial advancement in Crouzon-Pfeiffer syndrome: an age-specific, time-related, controlled study. Plast Reconstr Surg 2019; 143 (01) 121e-132e
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 44 Ortiz-Monasterio F, del Campo AF, Carrillo A. Advancement of the orbits and the midface in one piece, combined with frontal repositioning, for the correction of Crouzon's deformities. Plast Reconstr Surg 1978; 61 (04) 507-516
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 45 Hollier LH, Kim J-H, Grayson B, McCarthy JG. Mandibular growth after distraction in patients under 48 months of age. Plast Reconstr Surg 1999; 103 (05) 1361-1370
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar