The rigid external distraction (RED) device is reported to have the ability to three-dimensionally reposition the maxilla. The purpose of this study is to assess the ability of RED to intentionally alter the maxillary pitch.
Design
Retrospective cohort study.
Setting
Institutional practice.
Patients
A retrospective chart review was completed over the past 12 years and a total of 50 patients met the inclusion criteria.
Main outcome measures
Cephalometric changes and alteration in palatal plane angle.
Methods
Cephalometric analysis of standardized landmarks was completed on calibrated, standardized lateral cephalograms. Pre-distraction and post-consolidation variables were compared via a two-tailed paired t-test.
Results
The mean age at surgery of 12.2 ± 3.2 years. Through distraction osteogenesis (DO), the maxilla was moved anteriorly with a mean distraction distance of 8.4 ± 4.8 mm. The mean change in the angles sella-nasion-A-point angle (SNA), sella-nasion-B-point angle (SNB), and A-point-nasion-B-point angle (ANB) were 10.2 ± 4.8, 0.9 ± 2.7, and 9.3 ± 4.1, respectively. The mean change in the palatal plane angle was −4.4 ± 3.7. The mean change in the vertical position of the anterior nasal spine (ANS) and posterior nasal spine (PNS) in relation to the Frankfort horizontal (FH) were −2.0 ± 4.1 mm and 1.7 ± 3.8 mm, respectively.
Conclusion
This study documents short-term findings of RED in a large cleft lip and palate (CLP) population. Despite positioning of distraction eyelets superior to the theoretical center of resistance, a counterclockwise (CCW) rotation of the palatal plane occurred. This suggests that adjunctive methods of vector control should be considered if clockwise (CW) rotation of the palatal plane is intended with the RED device.
GoodPMMullikenJBPadwaBL. Frequency of Le Fort I osteotomy after repaired cleft lip and palate or cleft palate. Cleft Palate Craniofac J. 2007;44(4):396‐401.
2.
DaskalogiannakisJMehtaM. The need for orthognathic surgery in patients with repaired complete unilateral and complete bilateral cleft lip and palate. Cleft Palate Craniofac J. 2009;46(5):498‐502.
3.
PosnickJCKinardBE. Challenges in the successful reconstruction of cleft lip and palate: managing the nasomaxillary deformity in adolescence. Plast Reconstr Surg. 2020;145(3):591e‐5603e.
4.
RossRB. Treatment variables affecting facial growth in complete unilateral cleft lip and palate. Cleft Palate J. 1987;24(1):5‐77.
5.
NimbalkarKADatanaSAgarwalSSChopraSSBhandariSK. Comparison of long-term skeletal stability following maxillary advancement using rigid external distraction in growing and non-growing patients with cleft lip and palate: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Eur J Orthod. 2022;44(1):22‐29.
6.
BisharaSE. Cephalometric evaluation of facial growth in operated and non-operated individuals with isolated clefts of the palate. Cleft Palate J. 1973;10(3):239‐246.
7.
SapersteinELKennedyDLMullikenJBPadwaBL. Facial growth in children with complete cleft of the primary palate and intact secondary palate. J Oral Maxillofac Surg. 2012;70(1):e66‐ee71.
8.
AlkhouriSWaitePDDavisMBLamaniEKauCH. Maxillary distraction osteogenesis in unilateral cleft lip and palate patients with rigid external distraction system. Ann Maxillofac Surg. 2017;7(1):57‐63.
9.
KloukosDFudalejPSequeira-ByronPKatarosC. Maxillary distraction osteogenesis versus orthognathic surgery for cleft lip and palate patients. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2016;9(9):CD010403.
10.
AustinSLMattickCRWaterhousePJ. Distraction osteogenesis versus orthognathic surgery for the treatment of maxillary hypoplasia in cleft lip and palate patients: a systematic review. Orthod Craniofac Res. 2015;18(2):96‐108.
11.
CheungLKChuaHHäggMB. Cleft maxillary distraction versus orthognathic surgery: clinical morbidities and surgical relapse. Plast Reconstr Surg. 2006;118(4):996‐1008.
12.
JiangLZhengYLiN, et al.Relapse rate after surgical treatment of maxillary hypoplasia in non-growing cleft patients: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Int J Oral Maxillofac Surg. 2020;49(4):421‐443.
13.
Esmeraldo Gurfel MaiaLHWain Thi LauGMendonça CepelloFSant’AnnaEFFigueroAA. Skeletal stability and airway changes after maxillary advancement using a rigid external distraction system in non-growing cleft patients. J Craniofac Surg. 2021;32(2):195‐198.
14.
KonofaosPWallaceRD. Distraction osteogenesis in craniofacial surgery: past, present, and future. J Craniofac Surg. 2021;32(suppl 3):1221‐1228
15.
DoucetJCHerlinCBigorreMBaumlerCSubsolGCaptierG. Effects of growth on maxillary distraction osteogenesis in cleft lip and palate. J Craniomaxillofac Surg. 2013;41(8):836‐841.
16.
HaradaKSatoMOmuraK. Long-term maxillomandibular skeletal and dental changes in children with cleft lip and palate after maxillary distraction. Oral Surg Oral Med Oral Pathol Oral Radiol Endod. 2006;102(3):292‐299.
17.
PolleyJWFigueroaAA. Management of severe maxillary deficiency in childhood and adolescence through distraction osteogenesis with an external, adjustable, rigid distraction device. J Craniofac Surg. 1997;8(3):181‐185.
18.
FigueroaAAPolleyJW. Management of severe cleft maxillary deficiency with distraction osteogenesis: procedure and results. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop. 1999;115(1):1‐12.
19.
FigueroaAAPolleyJWKoEW. Maxillary distraction for the management of cleft maxillary hypoplasia with a rigid external distraction system. Semin Orthod. 1999;5(1):46‐51.
20.
HussainSAVijayakumarC. A technical innovation in midface advancement with the external frame distraction device. Cleft Palate Craniofac J. 2019;56(5):670‐673.
21.
GoelPFahradyanAWolfswinkelEM, et al.Is Le Fort I distraction enough to treat severe midface hypoplasia?J Craniofac Surg. 2021;32(5):1716‐1720.
22.
WongGBCiminelloFSPadwaBL. Distraction osteogenesis of the cleft maxilla. Facial Plast Surg. 2008;24(04):467‐471.
23.
RachmielAAizenbudDPeledM. Distraction osteogenesis in maxillary deficiency using a rigid external distraction device. Plast Reconstr Surg. 2006;117(7):2399‐2406.
24.
BaekSLeeJKimK. Comparison of treatment outcome and stability between distraction osteogenesis and Le Fort I osteotomy in cleft patients with maxillary hypoplasia. J Craniofac Surg. 2007;18(5):1209‐1215.
25.
WangsrimongkolBFloresRLStaffenbergDARodriguezEDShetyePR. Skeletal and dental correction and stability following Le Fort I advancement in patients with cleft lip and palate with mild, moderate, and severe maxillary hypoplasia. Cleft Palate Craniofac J. 2022;59(1):98‐109.
26.
FigueroaAAPolleyJWFriedeH, et al.Long-term skeletal stability after maxillary advancement with distraction osteogenesis using a rigid external distraction device in cleft maxillary deformities. Plast Reconstr Surg. 2004;114(6):1382‐1394.
27.
AhnJGFigueroaAABraunSPolleyJW. Biomechanical considerations in distraction of the osteotomized dentomaxillary complex. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop. 1999;116(3):264‐270.
28.
NandaRGoldinB. Biomechanical approaches to the study of alterations of facial morphology. Am J Orthod. 1980;78(2):213‐226.
29.
WangsrimongkolBFloresRLStaffenbergDARodriguezEDShetyePR. Skeletal and dental stability following different magnitude of Le Fort I advancement in patients with cleft lip and palate. J Oral Maxillofac Surg. 2021;79(9):1932‐1942.
30.
CheungLKChuaHD. A meta-analysis of cleft maxillary osteotomy and distraction osteogenesis. Int J Oral Maxillofac Surg. 2006;35(1):14‐24.
31.
AksuMSaglam-AydinatayBAkcanCA, et al.Skeletal and dental stability after maxillary distraction with a rigid external device in adult cleft lip and palate patients. J Oral Maxillofac Surg. 2010;68(2):254‐259.
32.
ScolozziP. Distraction osteogenesis in the management of severe maxillary hypoplasia in cleft lip and palate patients. J Craniofac Surg. 2008;19(5):1199‐1214.
33.
KapadiaHSusarlaSM. Personal communication. March 16, 2022
34.
ZhengYYinNZhaoZ, et al.Two-stage maxillary distraction osteogenesis using a modified external device: clinical outcome and complications. Br J Oral Maxillofac Surg. 2019;57(3):236‐241.
35.
TobolowskyWGuptaPLopezJ, et al.Rigid external Le Fort I distraction followed by secondary bone grafting for maxillary advancements in patients with cleft lip and palate. J Craniofac Surg. 2019;30(7):1974‐1978.
36.
LiuKZhouN. Long-term skeletal changes after maxillary distraction osteogenesis in growing children with cleft lip/palate. J Craniofac Surg. 2018;29(4):e349‐ee352.
37.
SaltajiHMajorMPAltalibiMYoussefMFlores-MirC. Long-term skeletal stability after maxillary advancement with distraction osteogenesis in cleft lip and palate patients. Angle Orthod. 2012;82(6):1115‐1122.
