Unique ID issued by UMIN | UMIN000004402 |
---|---|
Receipt number | R000005262 |
Scientific Title | Evaluation of Distraction osteogenesis for severe hypoplastic maxilla or mandible |
Date of disclosure of the study information | 2010/11/01 |
Last modified on | 2017/04/23 10:23:10 |
Evaluation of Distraction osteogenesis for severe hypoplastic maxilla or mandible
Evaluation of Distraction osteogenesis for severe hypoplastic maxilla or mandible
Evaluation of Distraction osteogenesis for severe hypoplastic maxilla or mandible
Evaluation of Distraction osteogenesis for severe hypoplastic maxilla or mandible
Japan |
Hypoplastic maxilla, hypoplastic mandible
Plastic surgery |
Others
NO
Maxillary distraction using halo-type devices has been a breakthrough in LeFort I maxillary advancement for cleft cases, because of the possibilities for three-dimensional correction of the hypoplastic maxilla and the stability of the advanced maxillary segment. In addition, together with the RED Retention Plate System, it allows control of the palatal plane easily during the distraction. We have reported these advantages of halo type distraction technique, but we have begun to notice the possibility that LeFort I advancement deteriorates the patient's velopharyngeal function in some cases. Furthermore, the skeletal correction with LeFort I advancement for the hypoplastic maxilla is achieved simply by forcing the small maxillary dental arch to be set for the normal size dental arch of the mandible. Therefore, some of the molars are not involved in occlusion in some cases. To improve these problems, we adopted anterior maxillary distraction osteogenesis (AMDO), similar to interdental distraction osteogenesis, for the cleft cases that exhibited severe hypoplastic maxilla and marginal velopharyngeal insufficiency. Even though AMDO has some problems yet, we expect it could be an alternative to LeFort I advancement for cleft cases. And we have also treated hemifacial microsomia cases using distraction osteogenesis technique. However it has been controversial whether mandibular distraction was effective or mandibular and maxillary distraction was necessary. To make clear the effects of distraction osteogenesis for maxillary or mandibular deformities, we are examining the records of the cases retrospectively.
Safety,Efficacy
Confirmatory
Pragmatic
Not applicable
evaluation at a month, 6months, 12months after the operation
complication
occlusion
collapse of distracted segments
velopharyngeal function
Interventional
Single arm
Non-randomized
Open -no one is blinded
Uncontrolled
1
Treatment
Maneuver |
Patients treated using distraction osteogenesis technique at Tohoku University Hospital in Sendai, Japan from 2000 to 2009 were included.
Not applicable |
Not applicable |
Male and Female
over 1 year follow up
drop out until 1 year postoperative
20
1st name | |
Middle name | |
Last name | Yoshimichi imai |
Tohoku University Graduate School of Medicine
Department of Plastic and Reconstructive Surgery
Seiryo-machi 2-1, Aoba-ku, Sendai, Miyagi-pref., JAPAN
022-717-7332
yo-imai@med.tohoku.ac.jp
1st name | |
Middle name | |
Last name | Yoshimichi Imai |
Tohoku University Graduate School of Medicine
Department of Plastic and Reconstructive Surgery
Seiryo-machi 2-1, Aoba-ku, Sendai, Miyagi-pref., JAPAN
022-717-7332
yo-imai@med.tohoku.ac.jp
Tohoku University Graduate School of Medicine
None
Self funding
YES
2009-518
Ethics Committee, Tohoku University School of Medicine
2010 | Year | 11 | Month | 01 | Day |
Partially published
Main results already published
2010 | Year | 03 | Month | 29 | Day |
2010 | Year | 04 | Month | 01 | Day |
2010 | Year | 10 | Month | 18 | Day |
2017 | Year | 04 | Month | 23 | Day |
Value
https://center6.umin.ac.jp/cgi-open-bin/ctr_e/ctr_view.cgi?recptno=R000005262