File Download

There are no files associated with this item.

  Links for fulltext
     (May Require Subscription)
Supplementary

Article: Cleft maxillary distraction versus orthognathic surgery: Clinical morbidities and surgical relapse

TitleCleft maxillary distraction versus orthognathic surgery: Clinical morbidities and surgical relapse
Authors
Issue Date2006
PublisherLippincott Williams & Wilkins. The Journal's web site is located at http://www.plasreconsurg.com
Citation
Plastic And Reconstructive Surgery, 2006, v. 118 n. 4, p. 996-1008 How to Cite?
AbstractBACKGROUND: This is the first randomized controlled study aiming to compare the postoperative clinical morbidities in cleft lip and palate patients treated with distraction osteogenesis versus conventional orthognathic surgery. METHODS: Twenty-nine cleft lip and palate patients with moderate maxillary hypoplasia requiring a maxillary Le Fort I advancement of 4 to 10 mm were randomized into two groups for either internal maxillary distractors or immediate fragment transposition using miniplates and screw fixation. Clinical morbidities were recorded using standardized questionnaires. Skeletal and dental relapses were assessed using lateral cephalometric landmarks. RESULTS: In the distraction group, two of 15 patients developed infection around the distractors and one patient had an occlusal relapse. Among the 14 patients who received conventional orthognathic surgery, the complications included intraoperative hemorrhage (n = 1), plate exposure leading to sinusitis (n = 1), and occlusal relapse (n = 1). In the skeletal relapses of the osteotomy group, a statistically significant vertical relapse of the A point was noted during the second to twelfth weeks when compared with the distraction group. A statistically significant horizontal relapse of the A and P points during the eighth to twelfth weeks was noted when the osteotomy group was compared with the distraction group. CONCLUSIONS: There were no major differences in the clinical morbidities between the osteotomy and distraction groups. Distraction provided better skeletal stability, whereas there was a significant amount of skeletal relapse in the first 12 weeks after conventional cleft maxillary osteotomy. Copyright ©2006 by the American Society of Plastic Surgeons.
Persistent Identifierhttp://hdl.handle.net/10722/66897
ISSN
2015 Impact Factor: 3.087
2015 SCImago Journal Rankings: 1.986
ISI Accession Number ID
References

 

DC FieldValueLanguage
dc.contributor.authorCheung, LKen_HK
dc.contributor.authorChua, HDPen_HK
dc.contributor.authorHägg, MBen_HK
dc.date.accessioned2010-09-06T05:50:16Z-
dc.date.available2010-09-06T05:50:16Z-
dc.date.issued2006en_HK
dc.identifier.citationPlastic And Reconstructive Surgery, 2006, v. 118 n. 4, p. 996-1008en_HK
dc.identifier.issn0032-1052en_HK
dc.identifier.urihttp://hdl.handle.net/10722/66897-
dc.description.abstractBACKGROUND: This is the first randomized controlled study aiming to compare the postoperative clinical morbidities in cleft lip and palate patients treated with distraction osteogenesis versus conventional orthognathic surgery. METHODS: Twenty-nine cleft lip and palate patients with moderate maxillary hypoplasia requiring a maxillary Le Fort I advancement of 4 to 10 mm were randomized into two groups for either internal maxillary distractors or immediate fragment transposition using miniplates and screw fixation. Clinical morbidities were recorded using standardized questionnaires. Skeletal and dental relapses were assessed using lateral cephalometric landmarks. RESULTS: In the distraction group, two of 15 patients developed infection around the distractors and one patient had an occlusal relapse. Among the 14 patients who received conventional orthognathic surgery, the complications included intraoperative hemorrhage (n = 1), plate exposure leading to sinusitis (n = 1), and occlusal relapse (n = 1). In the skeletal relapses of the osteotomy group, a statistically significant vertical relapse of the A point was noted during the second to twelfth weeks when compared with the distraction group. A statistically significant horizontal relapse of the A and P points during the eighth to twelfth weeks was noted when the osteotomy group was compared with the distraction group. CONCLUSIONS: There were no major differences in the clinical morbidities between the osteotomy and distraction groups. Distraction provided better skeletal stability, whereas there was a significant amount of skeletal relapse in the first 12 weeks after conventional cleft maxillary osteotomy. Copyright ©2006 by the American Society of Plastic Surgeons.en_HK
dc.languageengen_HK
dc.publisherLippincott Williams & Wilkins. The Journal's web site is located at http://www.plasreconsurg.comen_HK
dc.relation.ispartofPlastic and Reconstructive Surgeryen_HK
dc.rightsPlastic and Reconstructive Surgery. Copyright © Lippincott Williams & Wilkins.en_HK
dc.subject.meshAdolescenten_HK
dc.subject.meshAdulten_HK
dc.subject.meshCephalometryen_HK
dc.subject.meshCleft Lip - surgeryen_HK
dc.subject.meshCleft Palate - surgeryen_HK
dc.subject.meshFemaleen_HK
dc.subject.meshHumansen_HK
dc.subject.meshMaleen_HK
dc.subject.meshMaxilla - surgeryen_HK
dc.subject.meshMaxillary Diseases - surgeryen_HK
dc.subject.meshOsteogenesis, Distractionen_HK
dc.subject.meshOsteotomy, Le Fort - methodsen_HK
dc.subject.meshRecurrenceen_HK
dc.titleCleft maxillary distraction versus orthognathic surgery: Clinical morbidities and surgical relapseen_HK
dc.typeArticleen_HK
dc.identifier.openurlhttp://library.hku.hk:4550/resserv?sid=HKU:IR&issn=0032-1052&volume=118&spage=996&epage=1008&date=2006&atitle=Cleft+Maxillary+Distraction+versus+Orthognathic+Surgery:+Clinical+Morbidities+and+Surgical+Relapse+en_HK
dc.identifier.emailCheung, LK:lkcheung@hkucc.hku.hken_HK
dc.identifier.authorityCheung, LK=rp00013en_HK
dc.description.naturelink_to_subscribed_fulltext-
dc.identifier.doi10.1097/01.prs.0000232358.31321.eaen_HK
dc.identifier.pmid16980862-
dc.identifier.scopuseid_2-s2.0-33748790940en_HK
dc.identifier.hkuros122286en_HK
dc.relation.referenceshttp://www.scopus.com/mlt/select.url?eid=2-s2.0-33748790940&selection=ref&src=s&origin=recordpageen_HK
dc.identifier.volume118en_HK
dc.identifier.issue4en_HK
dc.identifier.spage996en_HK
dc.identifier.epage1008en_HK
dc.identifier.eissn1529-4242-
dc.identifier.isiWOS:000240700100021-
dc.publisher.placeUnited Statesen_HK
dc.identifier.scopusauthoridCheung, LK=7102302747en_HK
dc.identifier.scopusauthoridChua, HDP=10838799100en_HK
dc.identifier.scopusauthoridHägg, MB=14622622200en_HK

Export via OAI-PMH Interface in XML Formats


OR


Export to Other Non-XML Formats