• Korean Journal of Cleft Lip And Palate
• /
• v.7 no.2
• /
• pp.107-121
• /
• 2004

Midface and maxillary distraction osteogenesis (DO) can be an alternative treatement modality for the craniofacial syndrome patients and cleft lip and palate patients. Rigid External Distraction (RED) II system has more advantages in the force vector control than the other types of distraction systems. Despite of increasing popularity of RED system there is few report on the failure factors. Some considerations should be pointed out in using RED II system for successful treatment; the rigidity of intraoral splint, complete separation of bony segment, and the cooperation of patients. Orthodontists, surgeons, and patients have the same amount of responsibility for the successful midface and maxillary DO using RED II system from the beginning to the end of the treatment.

• Korean Journal of Cleft Lip And Palate
• /
• v.12 no.2
• /
• pp.85-94
• /
• 2009

Cleft lip and palate patients show midface hypoplasia, maxillary hypoplasia due to scar of previous surgery, and manifest as a class III malocclusion, retruded midface and shallow palate. These deformities have been treated with traditional orthognathic surgery. Although conventional Le Fort I osteotomy was performed on most cleft patinets with midface hypoplasia, it showed limited amount of maxillary advancement and high relapse tendency. Recently, when great amount of advancement are required in severe maxillary hypoplasia, distraction osteogenesis using RED system is widely used. But, several months of consolidation period is needed after distraction osteogenesis, occlusal relationship is not stable until mandibular setback surgery has done in mandibular hyperplasia cases and during these period, patients may feel discomfort. We present clinical cases of immediate rigid internal fixation after completion of maxillary distraction using RED system and simultaneous mandibular setback procedure in adult cleft and lip patients who show both maxillary hypoplasia and mandibular prognathism.

• Korean Journal of Cleft Lip And Palate
• /
• v.7 no.1
• /
• pp.63-76
• /
• 2004

Cleft lip and palate(CLP) patients usually have midface deficiency and Class III malocclusion. Distraction osteogenesis (DO) has been used recently to correct the maxillary hypoplasia with stable and predictable result. Both external and internal devices that permit midface distraction are available, This case report describes intraoral DO for correction of the midface deficiency in a adult CLP patient with relapse following orthognathic surgery. The purpose of this report is to present advantages of the intraoral DO for the treatment of CLP, The relative and potential clinical indications, treatment planning, patient preparation, and possible vector control for DO are discussed.

• Maxillofacial Plastic and Reconstructive Surgery
• /
• v.31 no.1
• /
• pp.53-60
• /
• 2009

Maxillary deficiency, anterior cross bite, constriction of maxillary arch, malaligned teeth are frequently observed in patients with cleft lip and palate. Surgery and orthodontics, combined intervention are needed to correct maxillary deficiency. Distraction osteogenesis that currently used has many advantages like less relapse tendency, more advancement of maxilla, capable in growing patients. In case 1, 18 years old girl with BCLP had severe midfacial deficiency and multiple missing of teeth. LeFort I osteotomy, followed by maxillary distraction osteogenesis utilizing rigid external distraction device(RED) system, was performed. After a 6-day latency period, distraction proceeded at a rate of 1mm per day (at 1st week, 1.5mm/day). Total advancement was 19mm. The RED device left in place for the additional 4 weeks for consolidation. After the RED device was removed, face mask was applied with elastic traction for 5 weeks. After achieving acceptable facial appearance and occlusion, orthodontic appliance was removed. The results after 4 years follow-up was sustained pretty well without aggravation of velopharyngeal function. In case 2, 22 years old man with UCLP had severe midfacial deficiency and palatally erupted upper 2nd premolars due to arch length discrepancy, but the anterior segment of maxillary did not show constriction and crowding. patient had no arch width discrepancy, crowding was concentrated on premolar region. Segmental LeFort I osteotomy was performed. After a 6 - day latency period, using internal distraction device, distraction proceeded at a 0.5mm per day(at 1st week, 0.75 - 1 mm/day). Total advancement was 15mm. After internal distraction device was removed, face mask was applied with elastic traction for 4 weeks. After surgical-orthodontic treatment, facial appearance and occlusion was improved pretty good, and after 46 months follow-up the result was retained well.

• Korean Journal of Cleft Lip And Palate
• /
• v.14 no.1_2
• /
• pp.19-28
• /
• 2011

Maxillary anterior segmental distraction osteogenesis (DO) has been the alternative treatment option for patients with midfacial retrusion. The patient showed unilateral cleft lip and palate, and premaxillary distraction with rigid external device (RED) was planned to solve midface deficiency and to create alveolar space. Significant advancement of A point was observed, but relapse of A point was detected during consolidation period. The vertical position of the ANS was found to have moved downward. Axis of upper incisor decreased after DO. Maxillary anterior segmental DO is effective for treatment of patient with cleft lip and palate. The alveolar space is regained successfully, and the facial profile is improved without velopharyngeal problems.

• Journal of the Korean Association of Oral and Maxillofacial Surgeons
• /
• v.28 no.2
• /
• pp.161-164
• /
• 2002

In recent, distraction osteogenesis has been used to correct skeletal malformations and discrepancies in the craniofacial area. It also seems to be considered as an alternative in the treatment of severe midfacial hypoplasia. There are some types of distractors for midfacial distraction such as subcutaneous distractors and rigid external distractors. We used a rigid external distractor for correction (RED) of craniofacial hypoplasia. Seven patients underwent a midfacial distraction osteogenesis with a rigid external distractor between April 2000 and July 2001. Three patients suffered from Apert's syndrome, three patients from Crouzon's syndrome, and one patient suffered from midfacial hypoplasia due to midfacial radiotheraphy during childhood. On average, the mean distance of distraction was 19.8mm ($10{\sim}25mm$) and the distraction lasted for 24 days. The patients showed no severe complications like infections, optic disturbance, or wrong distraction vectors. One patient complained pain on the site of the occipital fixation of the distractor. In one patient who underwent subtotal craniectomy 3 months before Le Fort III distraction, the distractor was dislocated as the cranial bone was too weak to support the distractor. This report reveals that the application of rigid external distractor and transfacial pull results in an exact control of the distraction vectors and an excellent correction of midfacial hypoplasia without any severe complications.

• Korean Journal of Cleft Lip And Palate
• /
• v.8 no.2
• /
• pp.63-70
• /
• 2005

Patients with cleft lip and palate usually show up maxillary hypoplasia. In these cases, a large amount of maxillary advancement is often needed to correct the severe deformity, but local soft-tissue scars around the maxilla restrict maxillary advancement and increase the relapse rate. Maxillary distraction osteogenesis is an effective method for facial and occlusal improvement in these patients. By gradually lengthening both the bones and the soft tissues, distracted midface can greatly increase postoperative stability and decrease the relapse rate. However, the maxillary extraoral appliances of the early days used were esthetically unappealing as well as difficult for the patient to manage. Recently, more inconspicuous intraoral distraction appliances have been developed and used with success. We acquired favorable result in two patients(bilateral 1 patient and unilateral 1 patient) with severe maxillary hypoplasia secondary to complete cleft lip and palate were treated with midface distraction using internal distractor (Zurich Pediatric Maxillary Distractor, KLS Martin, Tuttlingen, Germany). So, we report our experience with literatures.

• Journal of the Korean Association of Oral and Maxillofacial Surgeons
• /
• v.43 no.6
• /
• pp.407-414
• /
• 2017

Objectives: The study was designed to evaluate the efficacy of performing a second, repeat anterior maxillary distraction (AMD) to treat residual cleft maxillary hypoplasia. Materials and Methods: Five patients between the ages of 12 to 15 years with a history of AMD and with residual cleft maxillary hypoplasia were included in the study. Inclusion was irrespective of gender, type of cleft lip and palate, and the amount of advancement needed. Repeat AMD was executed in these patients 4 to 5 years after the primary AMD procedure to correct the cleft maxillary hypoplasia that had developed since the initial procedure. Orthopantomogram (OPG) and lateral cephalograms were taken for evaluation preoperatively, immediately after distraction, after consolidation, and one year postoperatively. The data obtained was tabulated and a Mann Whitney U-test was used for statistical comparisons. Results: At the time of presentation, a residual maxillary hypoplasia was observed with a well maintained distraction gap on the OPG which ruled out the occurrence of a relapse. Favorable movement of the segments without any resistance was seen in all patients. Mean maxillary advancement of 10.56 mm was achieved at repeat AMD. Statistically significant increases in midfacial length, SNA angle, and nasion perpendicular to point A distance was achieved (P=0.012, P=0.011, and P=0.012, respectively). Good profile was achieved for all patients. Minimal transient complications, for example anterior open bite and bleeding episodes, were managed. Conclusion: Addressing the problem of cleft maxillary hypoplasia at an early age (12-15 years) is beneficial for the child. Residual hypoplasia may develop in some patients, which may require additional corrective procedures. The results of our study show that AMD can be repeated when residual deformity develops with the previous procedure having no negative impact on the results of the repeat procedure.