Advertisement
Research Article| Volume 50, ISSUE 7, e104-e108, October 2012

Treatment of alveolar cleft with distraction osteogenesis using anchorage with a tooth–microimplant joint in a dog model

  • Author Footnotes
    c These authors contributed equally to this work.
    Dai-Ying Huang
    Footnotes
    c These authors contributed equally to this work.
    Affiliations
    Department of Oral and Maxillofacial Surgery, The First Affiliated Hospital, Sun Yat-sen University, Guangzhou 510080, People's Republic of China
    Search for articles by this author
  • Author Footnotes
    c These authors contributed equally to this work.
    Ji-Bing Zhang
    Footnotes
    c These authors contributed equally to this work.
    Affiliations
    Stomatological Department, Panyu District Central Hospital, Guangzhou 511400, People's Republic of China
    Search for articles by this author
  • Xiang Li
    Affiliations
    Department of Oral and Maxillofacial Surgery, The First Affiliated Hospital, Sun Yat-sen University, Guangzhou 510080, People's Republic of China
    Search for articles by this author
  • Song-Ling Chen
    Correspondence
    Corresponding author at: Department of Oral and Maxillofacial Surgery, The First Affiliated Hospital, Sun Yat-sen University, 58 Zhongshan Road 2, Guangzhou 510080, People's Republic of China. Tel.: +86 020 87333122; fax: +86 020 87333122.
    Affiliations
    Department of Oral and Maxillofacial Surgery, The First Affiliated Hospital, Sun Yat-sen University, Guangzhou 510080, People's Republic of China
    Search for articles by this author
  • Author Footnotes
    c These authors contributed equally to this work.
Published:January 03, 2012DOI:https://doi.org/10.1016/j.bjoms.2011.11.018

      Abstract

      Our aim was to investigate the efficacy of correction of an alveolar cleft with distraction osteogenesis using anchorage with a tooth–microimplant joint in a canine model, which was established in 12 adult mongrel dogs that were subsequently randomised into two groups (n = 6 in each). The first group comprised dogs that had osteogenesis using anchorage with a tooth (tooth group), while in the second, anchorage with tooth–microimplant joint (microimplant group) was used. All animals were killed one month after completion of distraction. Samples were collected for gross observation and histological examination. There was a significant difference in the degree of movement of the anchorage teeth in the transport discs between the 2 groups (p < 0.01). There was less prominent inclination and shift of the natural teeth in the transport disc and less bony resorption around the root in the microimplant group than in the tooth group. These changes were less remarkable in the microimplant group. Treatment of alveolar cleft by distraction osteogenesis using anchorage with a tooth–microimplant joint is practical, and yields better results.

      Keywords

      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:

      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

      References

        • McCarthy J.G.
        • Stelnicki E.J.
        • Mehrara B.J.
        • Longaker M.T.
        Distraction osteogenesis of the craniofacial skeleton.
        Plast Reconstr Surg. 2001; 107: 1812-1827
        • Yen S.L.
        • Gross J.
        • Wang P.
        • Yamashita D.D.
        Closure of a large alveolar cleft by bony transport of a posterior segment using orthodontic archwires attached to bone: report of a case.
        J Oral Maxillofac Surg. 2001; 59: 688-691
        • Glat P.M.
        • Staffenberg D.A.
        • Karp N.S.
        • Holliday R.A.
        • Steiner G.
        • McCarthy J.G.
        Multidimensional distraction osteogenesis: the canine zygoma.
        Plast Reconstr Surg. 1994; 94: 753-758
        • Liou E.J.
        • Chen P.K.
        • Huang C.S.
        • Chen Y.R.
        Interdental distraction osteogenesis and rapid orthodontic tooth movement: a novel approach to approximate a wide alveolar cleft or bony defect.
        Plast Reconstr Surg. 2000; 105: 1262-1272
        • Dolanmaz D.
        • Karaman A.I.
        • Durmus E.
        • Malkoc S.
        Management of alveolar clefts using dento-osseous transport distraction osteogenesis.
        Angle Orthod. 2003; 73: 723-729
        • Liao L.S.
        • Tan Z.
        • Zheng Q.
        • Wu J.
        • Shi B.
        • He X.
        • et al.
        Animal experimental study on repairing alveolar clefts by using rectilinear distraction osteogenesis.
        J Plast Reconstr Aesthet Surg. 2009; 62: 1573-1579
        • Mitsugi M.
        • Ito O.
        • Alcalde R.E.
        Maxillary bone transportation in alveolar cleft-transport distraction osteogenesis for treatment of alveolar cleft repair.
        Br J Plast Surg. 2005; 58: 619-625
        • El-Sayed K.M.
        • Khalil H.
        Transpalatal distraction osteogenesis prior to alveolar bone grafting in cleft lip and palate patients.
        Int J Oral Maxillofac Surg. 2010; 39: 761-766
        • Binger T.
        • Katsaros C.
        • Rücker M.
        • Spitzer W.J.
        Segment distraction to reduce a wide alveolar cleft before alveolar bone grafting.
        Cleft Palate Craniofac Surg. 2003; 40: 561-565
        • Henkel K.O.
        • Ma L.
        • Lenz J.H.
        • Jonas L.
        • Gundlach K.K.
        Closure of vertical alveolar bone defects with guided horizontal distraction osteogenesis: an experimental study in pigs and first clinical results.
        J Craniomaxillofac Surg. 2001; 29: 249-253
        • Wiechmann D.
        • Meyer U.
        • Büchter A.
        Success rate of mini- and micro-implants used for orthodontic anchorage: a prospective clinical study.
        Clin Oral Implants Res. 2007; 18: 263-267
        • Vachiramon A.
        • Urata M.
        • Kyung H.M.
        • Yamashita D.D.
        • Yen S.L.
        Clinical applications of orthodontic microimplant anchorage in craniofacial patients.
        Cleft Palate Craniofac Surg. 2009; 46: 136-146
        • Bae S.M.
        • Park H.S.
        • Kyung H.M.
        • Kwon O.W.
        • Sung J.H.
        Clinical application of micro-implant anchorage.
        J Clin Orthod. 2002; 36: 298-302
        • Suzuki E.Y.
        • Watanabe M.
        • Buranastidporn B.
        • Baba Y.
        • Ohyama K.
        • Ishii M.
        Simultaneous maxillary distraction osteogenesis using a twin-track distraction device combined with alveolar bone grafting in cleft patients: preliminary report of a technique.
        Angle Orthod. 2006; 76: 164-172
        • Nakamoto N.
        • Nagasaka H.
        • Daimaruya T.
        • Takahashi I.
        • Sugawara J.
        • Mitani H.
        Experimental tooth movement through mature and immature bone regenerates after distraction osteogenesis in dogs.
        Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop. 2002; 121: 385-395
        • Cope J.B.
        • Harper R.P.
        • Samchukov M.L.
        Experimental tooth movement through regenerate alveolar bone: a pilot study.
        Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop. 1999; 116: 501-505
        • Block M.S.
        • Cervini D.
        • Chang A.
        • Gottsegen G.B.
        Anterior maxillary advancement using tooth-supported distraction osteogenesis.
        J Oral Maxillofac Surg. 1995; 53: 561-565