TY - JOUR
T1 - Breakage of internal maxillary distractor
T2 - considerable complication of maxillary distraction osteogenesis
AU - Aikawa, Tomonao
AU - Iida, Seiji
AU - Isomura, Emiko T.
AU - Namikawa, Mari
AU - Matsuoka, Yudai
AU - Yamada, Chiaki
AU - Yamamoto, Taku
AU - Takigawa, Yoko
N1 - Copyright:
Copyright 2008 Elsevier B.V., All rights reserved.
PY - 2008/7
Y1 - 2008/7
N2 - Maxillary distraction osteogenesis using intraoral distractors is now one of the standard treatments of maxillary retrusion. This report shows 2 cases of breakage of this internal maxillary distractor in patients with cleft lip and palate; one was observed during the distraction period and the other was during the retention period. The first case required a rotational movement of the distraction segment, and this movement caused the laterally dislocation of the posterior part of the distractor, where the distractor suffered some mechanical forces by mouth opening. In the latter case, breakage of distractor was observed on the radiographs taken 3 months after distraction and this complication may have been caused by mechanical force by occlusion and mastication. Both breakages were found at the joint of the anchorage plate and the extension rod, which has some flexibility for adjusting the plate to the bone surface. Therefore, surgeons should pay special attention for this mechanical weak area in this distractor not only during the advancement period, but also during the retention period and should avoid unnecessary frequent bending for adopting the bone surface, which directly weakens the joint.
AB - Maxillary distraction osteogenesis using intraoral distractors is now one of the standard treatments of maxillary retrusion. This report shows 2 cases of breakage of this internal maxillary distractor in patients with cleft lip and palate; one was observed during the distraction period and the other was during the retention period. The first case required a rotational movement of the distraction segment, and this movement caused the laterally dislocation of the posterior part of the distractor, where the distractor suffered some mechanical forces by mouth opening. In the latter case, breakage of distractor was observed on the radiographs taken 3 months after distraction and this complication may have been caused by mechanical force by occlusion and mastication. Both breakages were found at the joint of the anchorage plate and the extension rod, which has some flexibility for adjusting the plate to the bone surface. Therefore, surgeons should pay special attention for this mechanical weak area in this distractor not only during the advancement period, but also during the retention period and should avoid unnecessary frequent bending for adopting the bone surface, which directly weakens the joint.
UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=45949086680&partnerID=8YFLogxK
UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/citedby.url?scp=45949086680&partnerID=8YFLogxK
U2 - 10.1016/j.tripleo.2008.03.035
DO - 10.1016/j.tripleo.2008.03.035
M3 - Article
C2 - 18585604
AN - SCOPUS:45949086680
SN - 1079-2104
VL - 106
SP - e1-e7
JO - Oral Surgery, Oral Medicine, Oral Pathology, Oral Radiology and Endodontology
JF - Oral Surgery, Oral Medicine, Oral Pathology, Oral Radiology and Endodontology
IS - 1
ER -