Treatment of maxillomandibular deformities with internal curvilinear distraction

Annals of Plastic Surgery

Volumn 67, Issue 6, 2011, Pages

  Schendel, Stephen A ^a,b  

^a STANFORD UNIVERSITY SCHOOL OF MEDICINE   (United States)

^b California Craniofacial Institute   (United States)

Author keywords

jaw deformity; OSA; osteodistraction

Indexed keywords

ADOLESCENT; ADULT; ARTICLE; CHILD; CONGENITAL MALFORMATION; CRANIOFACIAL MALFORMATION; DISTRACTION OSTEOGENESIS; FEMALE; HUMAN; INFANT; MALE; MANDIBLE; MAXILLA; MAXILLOFACIAL DEVELOPMENT; METHODOLOGY; NEWBORN; ORTHOGNATHIC SURGERY; OSTEOTOMY; PRESCHOOL CHILD; TREATMENT OUTCOME;

ADOLESCENT; ADULT; CHILD; CHILD, PRESCHOOL; CRANIOFACIAL ABNORMALITIES; FEMALE; HUMANS; INFANT; INFANT, NEWBORN; MALE; MANDIBLE; MAXILLA; MAXILLOFACIAL DEVELOPMENT; ORTHOGNATHIC SURGICAL PROCEDURES; OSTEOGENESIS, DISTRACTION; OSTEOTOMY; TREATMENT OUTCOME;

EID: 82655166339     PISSN: 01487043     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1097/SAP.0b013e3182183599     Document Type: Article

References (15)

1. Molina F, Ortiz Monasterio F. Mandibular elongation and remodeling bydistraction: A farewell to major osteotomies. Plast Reconstr Surg. 1995;96:825-840.
2. McCarthy JG. The role of distraction osteogenesis in the reconstruction of themandible in unilateral craniofacial microsomia. Clin Plast Surg. 1994;21:625-631.
3. Yen SL, Gross J, Yamashita D. Correcting an anterior open-bite side effectduring distraction with spring forces. Plast Reconstr Surg. 2002;110:1476-1484.
4. Salentijn L, Moss ML. Morphological attributes of the logarithmic growth ofthe human face: Gnomonic growth. Acta Anat (Basel). 1971;78:185-199.
5. Ricketts RM. A principle of archial growth of the mandible. Angle Orthod.1972;42:368.
6. Schendel S, Kahn D, Linck D, et al. A preliminary report on the use ofsemi-buried curvilinear distractor in the human mandible. In: Arnaud E, DinerPA, eds. Proceedings of the Third International Congress on Cranial andFacial Bone Distraction Processes. Bologna, Italy: Monduzzi Editore; 2001:255-258.
7. Schendel SA, Linck DW. A new spiral distractor for mandibular osteodistraction.In: Samchukov ML, ed. Craniofacial Distraction Osteogenesis. St.Louis, MO: Mosby; 2001.
8. Stelnicki E, Lin WY, Lee C, et al. Long-term outcome study of bilateralmandibular distraction: A comparison of Treacher Collins and Nager syndromesto other types of micrognathia. Plast Reconstr Surg. 2002;109:1819-1825.
9. Schreuder WH, Jansma J, Bierman MW, et al. Distraction osteogenesis versussagittal split for the advancement of the retrognathic mandible: A review of theliterature. Int J Oral Maxillofac Surg. 2007;36:103-110.
10. Yeshwant K. Range of curvilinear distraction devices required for treatmentof mandibular deformities. Presented at: The AAOMS Annual Meeting; SanFrancisco, CA; 2003.
11. Rodriquez A, Hopkins EH, Linck DW, et al. Treatment of mandibulardeformities with curvilinear distraction. Presented at: The 61st Annual Meetingof the American Cleft Palate-Craniofacial Association; March 2004;Chicago, IL.
12. Schendel SA, Linck DW. Mandibular distraction Osteogenesis by sagittalsplit osteotomy and intraoral curvilinear distraction. J Craniofac Surg. 2004;15:631-635.
13. Miller JJ, Kahn D, Lorenz P, et al. Infant mandibular distraction with aninternal device. J Craniofac Surg. 2007;1806:1403-1407.
14. Herford AS, Hoffman R, Demirdji S. A comparison of synovial pressure afterimmediate versus gradual mandibular advancement in the miniature pig.J Oral Maxillofac Surg. 2005;63:775.
15. Schendel S, Tulasne JF, Linck DW. Idiopathic condylar resorption andmicrognathia: The case for distraction osteogenesis. J Oral Maxillofac Surg.2007;658:1610-1616.