Download PDF
Semin Plast Surg 2014; 28(4): 193-198
DOI: 10.1055/s-0034-1390172
Thieme Medical Publishers 333 Seventh Avenue, New York, NY 10001, USA.

Le Fort I Maxillary Advancement Using Distraction Osteogenesis

Patrick D. Combs
,
Raymond J. Harshbarger III
Further Information

Publication History

Publication Date:
04 November 2014 (online)

    Permissions and Reprints

Abstract

Treatment of maxillary hypoplasia has traditionally involved conventional Le Fort I osteotomies and advancement. Advancements of greater than 10 mm risk significant relapse. This risk is greater in the cleft lip and palate population, whose anatomy and soft tissue scarring from prior procedures contributes to instability of conventional maxillary advancement. Le Fort I advancement with distraction osteogenesis has emerged as viable, stable treatment modality correction of severe maxillary hypoplasia in cleft, syndromic, and noncleft patients. In this article, the authors provide a review of current data and recommendations concerning Le Fort I advancement with distraction osteogenesis. In addition, they outline their technique for treating severe maxillary hypoplasia with distraction osteogenesis using internal devices.

Keywords

Le Fort I distraction osteogenesis - cleft lip/palate - Le Fort I osteotomy - maxillary hypoplasia - midface advancement
 

  • References

  • 1 Obwegeser HL. Surgical correction of small or retrodisplaced maxillae. The “dish-face” deformity. Plast Reconstr Surg 1969; 43 (4) 351-365
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 2 Polley JW, Figueroa AA. 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 , discussion 186
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 3 Cheung LK, Chua HD. A meta-analysis of cleft maxillary osteotomy and distraction osteogenesis. Int J Oral Maxillofac Surg 2006; 35 (1) 14-24
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 4 Rachmiel A. Treatment of maxillary cleft palate: distraction osteogenesis versus orthognathic surgery—part one: maxillary distraction. J Oral Maxillofac Surg 2007; 65 (4) 753-757
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 5 Ross RB. Treatment variables affecting facial growth in complete unilateral cleft lip and palate. Cleft Palate J 1987; 24 (1) 5-77
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 6 McCarthy JG, Schreiber J, Karp N, Thorne CH, Grayson BH. Lengthening the human mandible by gradual distraction. Plast Reconstr Surg 1992; 89 (1) 1-8 , discussion 9–10
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 7 Molina F, Ortiz Monasterio F, de la Paz Aguilar M, Barrera J. Maxillary distraction: aesthetic and functional benefits in cleft lip-palate and prognathic patients during mixed dentition. Plast Reconstr Surg 1998; 101 (4) 951-963
    Google Scholar
  • 8 Polley JW, Figueroa AA, Charbel FT, Berkowitz R, Reisberg D, Cohen M. Monobloc craniomaxillofacial distraction osteogenesis in a newborn with severe craniofacial synostosis: a preliminary report. J Craniofac Surg 1995; 6 (5) 421-423
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 9 Polley JW, Figueroa AA. Rigid external distraction: its application in cleft maxillary deformities. Plast Reconstr Surg 1998; 102 (5) 1360-1372 , discussion 1373–1374
    Google Scholar
  • 10 Malagon HH, Romo GW, Quintero Mosqueda FR, Magaña FG. Multivectorial, external halo-assisted midface distraction in patients with severe hypoplasia. J Craniofac Surg 2008; 19 (6) 1663-1669
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 11 Kahn DM, Broujerdi J, Schendel SA. Internal maxillary distraction with a new bimalar device. J Oral Maxillofac Surg 2008; 66 (4) 675-683
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 12 Yamaji KE, Gateno J, Xia JJ, Teichgraeber JF. New internal Le Fort I distractor for the treatment of midface hypoplasia. J Craniofac Surg 2004; 15 (1) 124-127
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 13 Wang XX, Wang X, Yi B, Li ZL, Liang C, Lin Y. Internal midface distraction in correction of severe maxillary hypoplasia secondary to cleft lip and palate. Plast Reconstr Surg 2005; 116 (1) 51-60
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 14 Picard A, Diner PA, Galliani E, Tomat C, Vazquez Mr, Carls FP. Five years experience with a new intraoral maxillary distraction device (RID). Br J Oral Maxillofac Surg 2011; 49 (7) 546-551
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 15 Posnick JC, Dagys AP. Skeletal stability and relapse patterns after Le Fort I maxillary osteotomy fixed with miniplates: the unilateral cleft lip and palate deformity. Plast Reconstr Surg 1994; 94 (7) 924-932
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 16 Scolozzi P. Distraction osteogenesis in the management of severe maxillary hypoplasia in cleft lip and palate patients. J Craniofac Surg 2008; 19 (5) 1199-1214
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 17 Semb G. A study of facial growth in patients with unilateral cleft lip and palate treated by the Oslo CLP Team. Cleft Palate Craniofac J 1991; 28 (1) 1-21 , discussion 46–48
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 18 da Silva Filho OG, Normando AD, Capelozza Filho L. Mandibular growth in patients with cleft lip and/or cleft palate—the influence of cleft type. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop 1993; 104 (3) 269-275
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 19 Cho BC, Kyung HM. Distraction osteogenesis of the hypoplastic midface using a rigid external distraction system: the results of a one- to six-year follow-up. Plast Reconstr Surg 2006; 118 (5) 1201-1212
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 20 Gürsoy S, Hukki J, Hurmerinta K. Five-year follow-up of maxillary distraction osteogenesis on the dentofacial structures of children with cleft lip and palate. J Oral Maxillofac Surg 2010; 68 (4) 744-750
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 21 Rachmiel A, Aizenbud D, Peled M. Long-term results in maxillary deficiency using intraoral devices. Int J Oral Maxillofac Surg 2005; 34 (5) 473-479
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 22 Baek SH, Lee JK, Lee JH, Kim MJ, Kim JR. Comparison of treatment outcome and stability between distraction osteogenesis and LeFort I osteotomy in cleft patients with maxillary hypoplasia. J Craniofac Surg 2007; 18 (5) 1209-1215
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 23 Cheung LK, Chua HD, Hägg MB. Cleft maxillary distraction versus orthognathic surgery: clinical morbidities and surgical relapse. Plast Reconstr Surg 2006; 118 (4) 996-1008 , discussion 1009
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 24 Kumar A, Gabbay JS, Nikjoo R , et al. Improved outcomes in cleft patients with severe maxillary deficiency after Le Fort I internal distraction. Plast Reconstr Surg 2006; 117 (5) 1499-1509
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 25 Chua HD, Hägg MB, Cheung LK. Cleft maxillary distraction versus orthognathic surgery—which one is more stable in 5 years?. Oral Surg Oral Med Oral Pathol Oral Radiol Endod 2010; 109 (6) 803-814
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 26 Chua HD, Cheung LK. Soft tissue changes from maxillary distraction osteogenesis versus orthognathic surgery in patients with cleft lip and palate—a randomized controlled clinical trial. J Oral Maxillofac Surg 2012; 70 (7) 1648-1658
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 27 Figueroa AA, Polley JW, Friede H, Ko EW. 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) 1382-1392 , discussion 1393–1394
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 28 Kanno T, Mitsugi M, Hosoe M, Sukegawa S, Yamauchi K, Furuki Y. Long-term skeletal stability after maxillary advancement with distraction osteogenesis in nongrowing patients. J Oral Maxillofac Surg 2008; 66 (9) 1833-1846
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 29 Wiltfang J, Hirschfelder U, Neukam FW, Kessler P. Long-term results of distraction osteogenesis of the maxilla and midface. Br J Oral Maxillofac Surg 2002; 40 (6) 473-479
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 30 Aksu M, Saglam-Aydinatay B, Akcan CA , 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
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 31 Doucet JC, Herlin C, Bigorre M, Bäumler C, Subsol G, Captier G. Effects of growth on maxillary distraction osteogenesis in cleft lip and palate. J Craniomaxillofac Surg 2013; 41 (8) 836-841
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 32 Harada K, Sato M, Omura K. 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
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 33 Chua HD, Whitehill TL, Samman N, Cheung LK. Maxillary distraction versus orthognathic surgery in cleft lip and palate patients: effects on speech and velopharyngeal function. Int J Oral Maxillofac Surg 2010; 39 (7) 633-640
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 34 Chanchareonsook N, Whitehill TL, Samman N. Speech outcome and velopharyngeal function in cleft palate: comparison of Le Fort I maxillary osteotomy and distraction osteogenesis—early results. Cleft Palate Craniofac J 2007; 44 (1) 23-32
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 35 Guyette TW, Polley JW, Figueroa A, Smith BE. Changes in speech following maxillary distraction osteogenesis. Cleft Palate Craniofac J 2001; 38 (3) 199-205
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 36 Rachmiel A, Aizenbud D, Peled M. Distraction osteogenesis in maxillary deficiency using a rigid external distraction device. Plast Reconstr Surg 2006; 117 (7) 2399-2406
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 37 Figueroa AA, Polley JW. Clinical controversies in oral and maxillofacial surgery: Part two. External versus internal distraction osteogenesis for the management of severe maxillary hypoplasia: external distraction. J Oral Maxillofac Surg 2008; 66 (12) 2598-2604
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar