Long-term skeletodental stability of mandibular symphyseal distraction osteogenesis: Tooth-borne vs hybrid distraction appliances

5Citations
Citations of this article
22Readers
Mendeley users who have this article in their library.

Abstract

Objective: To evaluate and compare the long-term skeletodental stability of mandibular symphyseal distraction osteogenesis (MSDO) achieved with the use of tooth-borne vs. hybrid distraction appliances. Materials and Methods: Posttreatment and follow-up orthodontic records were collected for 33 patients. The 14 patients who underwent distraction with a tooth-borne appliance had a mean follow-up of 5.08 years. The 19 patients who underwent distraction with a hybrid appliance had a mean follow-up of 6.07 years. Records included intraoral photographs, study models, postero-anterior cephalometric radiographs, and lateral cephalometric radiographs. Total changes of 16 measurements were analyzed to compare patients who underwent the tooth-borne vs. the hybrid distraction. Results: Both groups shared several similar and significant (P < .05) changes from posttreatment to follow-up records. Cast analysis showed a decrease in intercanine width and arch length and an increase in irregularity index. The postero-anterior cephalometric radiograph showed an increase in the width of the interincisal apices. The lateral cephalometric radiograph showed a decrease in the MP-L1 angle. The only statistically significant difference between the two appliances was the intercentral incisor contact point. Conclusion: Changes found are consistent with those found in untreated and orthodontically treated individuals over time. The long-term changes in the current patient sample can be determined to be expected and acceptable. MSDO is a viable treatment option with the use of either a hybrid or tooth-borne appliance.

Cite

CITATION STYLE

APA

Durham, J. N., King, J. W., Robinson, Q. C., & Trojan, T. M. (2017). Long-term skeletodental stability of mandibular symphyseal distraction osteogenesis: Tooth-borne vs hybrid distraction appliances. Angle Orthodontist, 87(2), 246–253. https://doi.org/10.2319/022916-175.1

Register to see more suggestions

Mendeley helps you to discover research relevant for your work.

Already have an account?

Save time finding and organizing research with Mendeley

Sign up for free