• 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.

• Maxillofacial Plastic and Reconstructive Surgery
• /
• v.27 no.4
• /
• pp.324-333
• /
• 2005

Distraction osteogenesis for the advancement of hypoplastic maxilla of cleft patients has shown successful results. In this report, rigid external distraction(RED) system and internal distraction device were used for maxillary advancement. Each system has its advantages and disadvantages. Larger amount of advancement can be achieved with RED system. But complex external device may give patients psychological stress. Internal device is invisible. However its distraction amount have limitation for the advancement (< 20mm) and the vector cannot be changed freely during distraction. The authors treated five cleft patients with maxillary hypoplasia(three with RED system and two with internal distractor). Their results were clinically satisfactory. We present the pros and cons of RED and internal system for maxillary distraction osteogenesis.