This in silico kinematic study was performed to evaluate the best attainable outcomes of maxillary distraction osteogenesis given the constraints of linear and helical motion. The study sample included the retrospective records of 30 patients with maxillary retrusion who had been treated with distraction or had been recommended this treatment. The primary outcomes were the errors of linear and helical distraction. The study measured two types of error: misalignment of key upper jaw landmarks and misalignment of the occlusion. Concerning the misalignment of key landmarks, the median misalignments resulting from helical distraction were minimal; the interquartile ranges were also minimal. The median misalignments and interquartile ranges that resulted from linear distraction were significantly larger. Regarding the occlusal misalignments, helical distraction produced minor occlusal misalignments, while linear distraction produced significantly larger errors. The results of this study confirmed that helical motion is the ideal motion for LeFort I distraction.
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 International Journal of Oral and Maxillofacial Surgery
Already a print subscriber? Claim online access
Already an online subscriber? Sign in
Register: Create an account
Institutional Access: Sign in to ScienceDirect
- Midface advancement with internal distractors.in: Ehrenfeld M. Futran N.D. Manson P.N. Prein J. Advanced Craniomaxillofacial Surgery: Tumor, Corrective Bone Surgery and Trauma. Thieme, New York2020: 431-447
- Clinical application of curvilinear distraction osteogenesis for correction of mandibular deformities.J Oral Maxillofac Surg. 2009; 67: 996-1008
- A 3D system for planning and simulating minimally invasive distraction osteogenesis of the facial skeleton.Third International Conference on Medical Imaging Computing and Computer Assisted Intervention. MICCAI, Pittsburg, PA, USA2000: 1029-1039 (October 11–14, 2000)
- Range of curvilinear distraction devices required for treatment of mandibular deformities.J Oral Maxillofac Surg. 2006; 64: 259-264
- Evaluation of a semiburied, fixed-trajectory, curvilinear, distraction device in an animal model.J Oral Maxillofac Surg. 1999; 57 (discussion 1447–1448): 1442-1446
- Analysis of skeletal movements in mandibular distraction osteogenesis.J Oral Maxillofac Surg. 2005; 63: 335-340
- A computer-assisted approach to planning multidimensional distraction osteogenesis.Atlas Oral Maxillofac Surg Clin N Am. 2005; 13: 1-12
- Kinematic registration in 3D using the 2D Reuleaux method.J Mech Des N Y. 2006; 128: 349-355
- A new Le Fort I internal distraction device in the treatment of severe maxillary hypoplasia.J Oral Maxillofac Surg. 2005; 63: 148-154
- Geometric considerations in the transition from two-dimensional to three-dimensional treatment planning.Atlas Oral Maxillofac Surg Clin N Am. 2005; 13: 13-23
- Rapid maxillary distraction protocol utilizing the halo distraction system and rigid internal fixation.Cleft Palate Craniofac J. 2007; 44: 476-481
- Three-dimensional surgical planning for maxillary and midface distraction osteogenesis.J Craniofac Surg. 2003; 14: 833-839
- The use of internal maxillary distraction for maxillary hypoplasia: a preliminary report.J Oral Maxillofac Surg. 2006; 64: 1715-1720
Published online: February 20, 2023
Accepted: January 30, 2023
Publication stageIn Press Corrected Proof
© 2023 International Association of Oral and Maxillofacial Surgeons. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.