Research Article| Volume 50, ISSUE 7, P662-667, October 2012

Distraction osteogenesis after irradiation in rabbit mandibles

  • Author Footnotes
    c Tel.: +86 138 68622707; fax: +86 577 88069555.
    Yike Ma
    c Tel.: +86 138 68622707; fax: +86 577 88069555.
    Department of Stomatology, The First Affiliated Hospital of Wenzhou Medical College, No 2, Fuxue Lane,Lucheng District, Wenzhou City 325000, Zhejiang Province, China
    Search for articles by this author
  • Guofang Shen
    Corresponding author. Tel.: +86 21 63138341x5142; fax: +86 21 63136856.
    Department of Oral and Maxillofacial Surgery, College of Stomatology, Ninth People's Hospital, School of Medicine, Shanghai Jiaotong University, Shanghai Research Institute of Stomatology, Shanghai 200011,China
    Search for articles by this author
  • Author Footnotes
    c Tel.: +86 138 68622707; fax: +86 577 88069555.
Published:November 14, 2011DOI:


      The aim of this study was to investigate the influence of irradiation on the formation of bone after distraction osteogenesis in rabbit mandibles. Sixteen rabbits were randomly divided into 3 groups: one was given 50 Gy (n = 6), one was given 60 Gy (n = 6), and one acted as a control group (n = 4). One month after irradiation, the distractors were inserted. The control group was not irradiated. After a latency period of 8 days, distraction was activated at a rate of 0.4 mm twice a day. The mandibles were harvested 6 weeks after consolidation. The specimens and histological examination showed good formation of bone. Histological slides stained with haematoxylin and eosin confirmed that the regeneration was bone. The bony trabeculae of the control group were much better than those of the irradiated groups. However, the nuclei of osteocytes were round and the osteoblasts around the trabeculae were columnar or cubic in shape in the irradiated groups. Osteoid was present in the dense fibrous connective tissue. There were significant differences in the surface:volume ratio of areas of bony trabeculae between the control and both experimental groups (p = 0.010 and p = 0.001), but there was no significant difference between the 50 Gy and 60 Gy groups. The results suggested that preoperative radiation prevented optimal regeneration of bone. However, the microscopic appearance of osteocytes and osteoblasts and the osteoid in the dense fibrous connective tissue in both irradiated groups showed that osteogenesis was still active and in progress. These findings may indicate that bone formation had only been delayed. The evidence was similar for both 50 Gy and 60 Gy.


      To read this article in full you will need to make a payment

      Purchase one-time access:

      Academic & Personal: 24 hour online accessCorporate R&D Professionals: 24 hour online access
      One-time access price info
      • For academic or personal research use, select 'Academic and Personal'
      • For corporate R&D use, select 'Corporate R&D Professionals'


      Subscribe to British Journal of Oral and Maxillofacial Surgery
      Already a print subscriber? Claim online access
      Already an online subscriber? Sign in
      Institutional Access: Sign in to ScienceDirect


        • Werkmeister R.
        • Szulczewski D.
        • Walteros-Benz P.
        • Joos U.
        Rehabilitation with dental implants of oral cancer patients.
        J Craniomaxillofac Surg. 1999; 27: 38-41
        • Oechslin C.K.
        • Zimmermann A.P.
        • Gratz K.W.
        • Sailer H.F.
        Histologic evidence of osseointegration in the irradiated and reconstructed mandible: a case report.
        Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants. 1999; 14: 113-117
        • Gantous A.
        • Phillips J.H.
        • Catton P.
        • Holmberg D.
        Distraction osteogenesis in the irradiated canine mandible.
        Plast Reconstr Surg. 1994; 93: 164-168
        • Muhonen A.
        • Haaparanta M.
        • Gronroos T.
        • Bergman J.
        • Knuuti J.
        • Hinkka S.
        • et al.
        Osteoblastic activity and neoangiogenesis in distracted bone of irradiated rabbit mandible with or without hyperbaric oxygen treatment.
        Int J Oral Maxillofac Surg. 2004; 33: 173-178
        • Lee J.H.
        • Chung C.Y.
        • Myoung H.
        • Kim M.J.
        • Yun P.Y.
        Gait analysis of donor leg after free fibular flap transfer.
        Int J Oral Maxillofac Surg. 2008; 37: 625-629
        • Raghoebar G.M.
        • Jansma J.
        • Vissink A.
        • Roodenburg J.L.
        Distraction osteogenesis in the irradiated mandible. A case report.
        J Craniomaxillofac Surg. 2005; 33: 246-250
        • McCarthy J.G.
        • Schreiber J.
        • Karp N.
        • Thorne C.H.
        • Grayson B.H.
        Lengthening the human mandible by gradual distraction.
        Plast Reconstr Surg. 1992; 89: 1-10
        • Petruzzelli G.J.
        • Brockenbrough J.M.
        • Vandevender D.
        • Creech S.D.
        The influence of reconstructive modality on cost of care in head and neck oncologic surgery.
        Arch Otolaryngol Head Neck Surg. 2002; 128: 1377-1380
        • Chiapasco M.
        • Romeo E.
        • Vogel G.
        Vertical distraction osteogenesis of edentulous ridges for improvement of oral implant positioning: a clinical report of preliminary results.
        Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants. 2001; 16: 43-51
        • McAllister B.S.
        Histologic and radiographic evidence of vertical ridge augmentation utilizing distraction osteogenesis: 10 consecutively placed distractors.
        J Periodontol. 2001; 72: 1767-1779
        • Schreuder W.H.
        • Jansma J.
        • Bierman M.W.
        • Vissink A.
        Distraction osteogenesis versus bilateral sagittal split osteotomy for advancement of the retrognathic mandible: a review of the literature.
        Int J Oral Maxillofac Surg. 2007; 36: 103-110
        • Sawaki Y.
        • Hagino H.
        • Yamamoto H.
        • Ueda M.
        Trifocal distraction osteogenesis for segmental mandibular defect: a technical innovation.
        J Craniomaxillofac Surg. 1997; 25: 310-315
        • Kessler P.
        • Schultze-Mosgau S.
        • Neukam F.W.
        • Wiltfang J.
        Lengthening of the reconstructed mandible using extraoral distraction devices: report of five cases.
        Plast Reconstr Surg. 2003; 111: 1400-1406
        • Holmes S.B.
        • Lloyd T.
        • Coghlan K.M.
        • Newman L.
        Distraction osteogenesis of the mandible in the previously irradiated patient.
        J Oral Maxillofac Surg. 2002; 60: 305-309
        • Verdonck H.W.
        • Meijer G.J.
        • Laurin T.
        • Nieman F.H.
        • Stoll C.
        • Riediger D.
        • et al.
        Implant stability during osseointegration in irradiated and non-irradiated minipig alveolar bone: an experimental study.
        Clin Oral Implants Res. 2008; 19: 201-206
        • Fregene A.
        • Jing X.L.
        • Monson L.A.
        • Buchman S.R.
        Alteration in volumetric bone mineralization density gradation patterns in mandibular distraction osteogenesis following radiation therapy.
        Plast Reconstr Surg. 2009; 124: 1237-1244
        • Gonzalez-Garcia R.
        • Rodriguez-Campo F.J.
        • Naval-Gias L.
        • Sastre-Perez J.
        • Diaz-Gonzalez F.J.
        The effect of radiation in distraction osteogenesis for reconstruction of mandibular segmental defects.
        Br J Oral Maxillofac Surg. 2007; 45: 314-316
        • Esposito M.
        • Hirsch J.M.
        • Lekholm U.
        • Thomsen P.
        Biological factors contributing to failures of osseointegrated oral implants. II. Etiopathogenesis.
        Eur J Oral Sci. 1998; 106: 721-764
        • Cuesta-Gil M.
        • Ochandiano Caicoya S.
        • Riba-García F.
        • Duarte Ruiz B.
        • Navarro Cuellar C.
        • Navarro Vila C.
        Oral rehabilitation with osseointegrated implants in oncologic patients.
        J Oral Maxillofac Surg. 2009; 67: 2485-2496
        • Schliephake H.
        • Neukam F.W.
        • Schmelzeisen R.
        • Wichmann M.
        Long-term results of endosteal implants used for restoration of oral function after oncologic surgery.
        Int J Oral Maxillofac Surg. 1999; 28: 260-265