Long-term skeletodental stability of mandibular symphyseal distraction osteogenesis

Tooth-borne vs hybrid distraction appliances

Julia N. Durham, John W. King, Quinton C. Robinson, Terry Trojan

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

1 Citation (Scopus)

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.

Original languageEnglish (US)
Pages (from-to)246-253
Number of pages8
JournalAngle Orthodontist
Volume87
Issue number2
DOIs
StatePublished - Mar 1 2017

Fingerprint

Distraction Osteogenesis
Cephalometry
Tooth
Incisor
Orthodontics

All Science Journal Classification (ASJC) codes

  • Orthodontics

Cite this

Long-term skeletodental stability of mandibular symphyseal distraction osteogenesis : Tooth-borne vs hybrid distraction appliances. / Durham, Julia N.; King, John W.; Robinson, Quinton C.; Trojan, Terry.

In: Angle Orthodontist, Vol. 87, No. 2, 01.03.2017, p. 246-253.

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

@article{b03fc0a5f66a4ec891fdbdde5041ed86,
title = "Long-term skeletodental stability of mandibular symphyseal distraction osteogenesis: Tooth-borne vs hybrid distraction appliances",
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.",
author = "Durham, {Julia N.} and King, {John W.} and Robinson, {Quinton C.} and Terry Trojan",
year = "2017",
month = "3",
day = "1",
doi = "10.2319/022916-175.1",
language = "English (US)",
volume = "87",
pages = "246--253",
journal = "Angle Orthodontist",
issn = "0003-3219",
publisher = "E H Angle Orthodontists Research & Education Foundation, Inc.",
number = "2",

}

TY - JOUR

T1 - Long-term skeletodental stability of mandibular symphyseal distraction osteogenesis

T2 - Tooth-borne vs hybrid distraction appliances

AU - Durham, Julia N.

AU - King, John W.

AU - Robinson, Quinton C.

AU - Trojan, Terry

PY - 2017/3/1

Y1 - 2017/3/1

N2 - 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.

AB - 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.

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=85015178376&partnerID=8YFLogxK

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/citedby.url?scp=85015178376&partnerID=8YFLogxK

U2 - 10.2319/022916-175.1

DO - 10.2319/022916-175.1

M3 - Article

VL - 87

SP - 246

EP - 253

JO - Angle Orthodontist

JF - Angle Orthodontist

SN - 0003-3219

IS - 2

ER -