Browse > Article

THE REACTION OF BONE REGENERATE TO THE VARIOUS FORCE RATIO AND PERIODS ON DISTRACTION OSTEOGENESIS WITH COMBINED DISTRACTION FORCE AND COMPRESSION FORCE  

Kim, Uk-Kyu (Department of Oral and Maxillofacial Surgery, College of Dentistry, Pusan National University)
Shin, Sang-Hun (Department of Oral and Maxillofacial Surgery, College of Dentistry, Pusan National University)
Chung, In-Kyo (Department of Oral and Maxillofacial Surgery, College of Dentistry, Pusan National University)
Kim, Cheol-Hun (Dong-A University Medical School)
Huo, Jun (Dong-A University Medical School)
Yun, Il (Institute of Oral Biotechnology, Pusan National University)
Publication Information
Maxillofacial Plastic and Reconstructive Surgery / v.27, no.5, 2005 , pp. 403-414 More about this Journal
Abstract
The purpose of this study was to identify the effectiveness of the modified distraction osteogenesis (DO) method with the concept of overdistraction and compression stimulation which have been previously suggested by the authors in 2002 and to explore the optimal distraction-compression ratio and appropriate latency period for the compression force application during consolidation. The experimental specimens were assessed with radiography, histologic findings, and dual energy x-ray absorptiometry (DEXA) after the conventional DO method and the modified DO technique had been applied on rat mandibles. Total 60 rats were used for the study. In experimental group of 54 adult rats, mandibular osteotomies between the first and second molar areas were performed and customized external distractors were applied. The surgeries on 6 rats of control group also were done with same osteotomy technique and DO device application. Final amount of distraction was set-up as 2 mm on both groups. But, in a experimental group of 54 rats, distraction osteogenesis with a compression force were performed with the different distraction-compression ratio and variant latency periods for compression. The three ratio-subgroups were made as distraction 4 mm group with compression 2 mm, distraction 3 mm group with compression 1 mm, and distraction 2.5 mm group with compression 0.5 mm. In addition, The three subgroups with 3, 7, 11 days latency period prior compression were allocated on each ratio-subgroups. Total 9 subgroups consisted of 6 rats on each subgroup. In control group of 6 rats, conventional distraction technique were routinely performed. The rats of control groups were sacrificed on postoperative 3, 6 weeks after 2 mm distraction. The rats in the experimental groups also were sacrificed on the same euthanasia days of control groups to compare the wound healing. Final available specimens were 55 rats except 5 due to osteomyelitis, device dislodgement. Distraction-compression combined group on 6 weeks generally had showed increased bone mineral density than the same period group of conventional distraction technique on the DEXA study. More matured lamellar bone state and extended trabecular pattern in the combined group than those of control group were also observed in the histologic findings on 6 weeks. In the distraction-compression combined groups, the bone density of 2.5 mm distraction subgroups with 0.5 mm compression showed the highest value on the DEXA study among various force ratio groups. In the distraction-compression combined groups, the bone density of 3 day latency period subgroups showed the highest value on the DEXA study among various latency period groups for the compression application. From this study, we could deduce that 1/5 force ratio for the compression versus distraction, 3 day latency period prior compression application would be the most effective condition if modified distraction osteogenesis technique might be applicable. The modified DO method with a compression force may improve the quality of bone regenerate and shorten total treatment period in comparison with conventional DO technique clinically.
Keywords
Distraction Osteogenesis; Distraction force; Compression force; Force ratio; DEXA study;
Citations & Related Records
연도 인용수 순위
  • Reference
1 Guerrero CA, Bell WH, Contasti GI, Rodriguez AM : Mandubular widening by intraoral distraction osteogenesis. Br J Oral Maxillofac Surg 35 : 383, 1997   DOI   ScienceOn
2 Diner PA, Kollar EM, Martinez H, Vazquez MP : Submerged intraoral device for mandibular lengthening. J Craniomaxillofac Surg 25 : 116, 1997   DOI   PUBMED   ScienceOn
3 Kojimoto H, Yasui N, Goto T, Matsuda S, Shimomura Y : Bone lengthening in rabbits by callus distraction : the role of periosteum and endosteum. J Bone Joint Surg 70-B : 543, 1989
4 Wiltfang J, KeBler P, Merten H, Neukam FW : Continuous and intermittant bone distraction using a microhydraulic cylinder : an experimental study in minipigs. Br J Oral Maxillofac Surg 39 : 2, 2001   DOI   ScienceOn
5 Wolff J : The Law of Bone Remodeling. Orthopade, 24 : 378, 1995   PUBMED
6 De Bastiani G, Aldegheri R, Renzi Brivio L : The treatment of fractures with a dynamic axial fixator. J Bone Joint Surg Br 66 : 538, 1984   PUBMED
7 Kershaw CJ, Cunningham JL, Kenwright J : Tibial external fixation, weight bearing and fracture movement. Clin Orthop 293 : 286, 1993
8 Block MS, Brister GD : Use of distraction osteogenesis for maxillary advancement : preliminary results. J Oral Maxillofac Surg 52 : 282, 1994   DOI   ScienceOn
9 Greenwald JA, Luchs JS, Mehrara BJ, et al : Pumping the regenerate: an evaluation of oscillating distraction osteogenesis in the rodent mandible. Ann Plast Surg 44(5) : 516, 2000   DOI   ScienceOn
10 Delloye C, Delefortrie G, Coutelier L, Vincent A : Bone regenerate formation in cortical bone during distraction lengthening. An experimental study. Clin Orthop 250 : 34, 1990
11 Kessler P, Wiltfang J, Neukam FW : A new distraction device to compare continuous and discontinuous bone distraction in mini-pigs : a preliminary report. J Craniomaxillofac Surg 28 : 5, 2000   DOI   PUBMED   ScienceOn
12 Klotch DW, Ganey TM, Slater-Hasse A, Sasse J : Assessment of bone formation during osteogenesis. A canine model. Otolaryngol. Head Neck Surg 112 : 291, 1995   DOI   PUBMED   ScienceOn
13 Paccione MF, Mehrara BJ, Warren SM, Greenwald JA, Spector JA, Luchs Js, Longaker MT : Rat mandibular distraction osteogenesis: latency, rate, and rhythm determine the adaptive response. J Craniofac Surg 12 : 175, 2001   DOI   ScienceOn
14 Burger EH, Klein-Nulend J, Veldhuijzen JP : Mechanical stress and osteogenesis in vitro. J Bone Miner Res Suppl 2 : S397, 1992   PUBMED
15 Lazo-Zbikowski J, Aguilar F, Mozo F, Gonzalez-Buendia R, Lazo JM : Biocompression external fixation. sliding external osteosynthesis. Clin Orthop 206 : 169, 1986
16 Aronson J, Shen XC, Skinner RA, Hogue WR, Badger TM, Lumpkin CK Jr : Rat model of distraction osteogenesis. J Orthop Res 15 : 221, 1997   DOI   ScienceOn
17 Ilizarov GA : Clinical application of tension-stress effect for limb lengthening. Clin Orthop 250 : 8, 1990
18 Block MS, Cervini D, Chang A, Gottsegen GB : Anterior maxillary advancement using tooth-supported distraction osteogenesis. J Oral Maxillofac Surg 53 : 561, 1995   DOI   ScienceOn
19 Babak JM, Norman MR : Rat Mandibular Distraction Osteogenesis: II. Molecular Analysis of Transforming Growth Factor Beta-1 and Osteocalcin Gene Expression. Plast Reconstr Surg 103 : 536, 1999   DOI   ScienceOn
20 Warren SM, Mehrara BJ, Steinbrech DS, Paccione MF, Greenwald JA, Spector JA, Longaker MT : Rat mandibular distraction osteogenesis: part III. Gradual distraction versus acute lengthening. Plast Reconstr Surg 107 : 441, 2001   DOI   ScienceOn
21 Rowe NM, Mehrara BJ, Dudziak ME, Steinbreck DS, Mackool RJ, Gittes GK, McCarthy JG, Longaker MT : Rat mandibular Distraction osteogenesis: Part I. Histologic and radiographic analysis. Plast Reconstr Surg 102 : 2022, 1998   DOI   ScienceOn
22 Noordeen MH, Lavy CB, Shergill NS, Tuite JD, Jackson AM : Cyclical micromovement and fracture healing. J Bone Joint Surg (Br) 77 : 645, 1995   PUBMED
23 Mofid MM, Inoue N, Atabey A, Marti G, Chao EY, Manson PN, Vander Kolk CA : Callus stimulation in distraction osteogenesis. Plast Reconstr Surg 15 ; 109(5) : 1621, 2002   DOI   ScienceOn
24 Kim BK, Shin SH, Kim JR : A comparison study on distraction osteogenesis in the rat's tibia according to distraction rates. J Kor Oral Maxillofac Surg 26 : 620, 2000
25 Ilizarov GA : The tension-stress effect on the genesis and growth of tissue : Part I The influence of stability of fixation and soft-tissue preservation. Clin Orthop 238 : 249, 1989
26 Dehne E, Metz CW, Deffer PA, Hall RM : Nonoperative treatment of the fractured tibia by immediate weight bearing. J Trauma 1 : 514, 1961   PUBMED
27 Ilizarov GA : The tension-stress effect on the genesis and growth of tissue : Part II The influence of the rate and fre-quency of distraction. Clin Orthop 239 : 263, 1989
28 Luchs JS, Steinicki EJ, Rowe NM, et al : Molding of the Regenerate in mandibular distraction: Part 1: laboratory study. J Craniofac Surg 13(2) : 205, 2002   DOI   ScienceOn
29 Snyder CC, Levine GA, Swanson HM, Browne EZ jr : Mandibular lengthening by gradual distraction. Plast Reconstr Surg 51 : 506, 1973   DOI   PUBMED   ScienceOn
30 Kim UK, Lee KH, Chung IK, et al : Tissue reaction by combined distraction force with compression force with mandible in the rat. J Kor Oral Maxillofac Surg 28 : 103, 2002
31 McCarthy JG, Schreiber J, Karp N, Thorne CH, Grayson BH : Lengthening of the human mandible by gradual distraction. Plast Reconstr Surg 89 : 1, 1992   DOI   ScienceOn
32 Castello JR, Olaso AS, Chao JJ, McCarthy JG, Molina F : Craniofacial shortening by contraction osteogenesis: An experimental Model. Plast Reconstr Surg 105 : 617, 2000   DOI   ScienceOn
33 Ilizarov GA : A new principle of osteosynthesis with the use of crossing pins and rings. In Collection of Scientific Works of the Kurgan Regional Scientific Medical Society. Kurgan, USSR, 145, 1954
34 Codivilla A : On the means of lengthening in the lower limbs, the muscles, and tissues which are shortened through deformity. Am J Orthop Surg 2:353, 1905(cited from a reprint of the original article under the title 'The Classic' in Clin Orthop 301 : 4, 1994