Bone formation after surgically assisted rapid maxillary expansion: comparison of 2 distraction osteogenesis protocols

Detalhes bibliográficos
Autor(a) principal: Holzinger, Daniel
Data de Publicação: 2022
Outros Autores: Carvalho, Pedro Henrique de Azambuja [UNESP], dos Santos, José Cleveilton [UNESP], Wagner, Florian, Gabrielli, Marisa Aparecida Cabrini [UNESP], Gabrielli, Mario Francisco Real [UNESP], Filho, Valfrido Antonio Pereira [UNESP]
Tipo de documento: Artigo
Idioma: eng
Título da fonte: Repositório Institucional da UNESP
Texto Completo: http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.oooo.2021.06.013
http://hdl.handle.net/11449/229456
Resumo: Objective: The aim of this study was to compare bone formation between 2 distraction osteogenesis protocols by analyzing cone beam computed tomography (CBCT) scan data. Study Design: In this retrospective study, the efficacy of 2 different surgically assisted rapid maxillary expansion protocols (group 1 [G1], 3 × 0.25 mm/d; group 2 [G2], 1 mm start followed by 2 × 0.25 mm/d) was analyzed using CBCT scans obtained at 3 time points: preoperatively (T0), immediately after surgery (T1), and 6 months after surgery (T2). Bone formation at T0, T1, and T2 was analyzed using the Dolphin Imaging 11 program. Results: At T1, both groups had significantly higher bone volume than at T0 (G1, 135.6 vs 124.65 mm3, respectively; G2, 153.49 vs 118.9 mm3, respectively), with no significant difference between groups (P = .6). Moreover, bone density measured in the region of interest was similar between groups at all 3 time points; however, in both groups, bone density was significantly lower at T1 and T2 than at T0 (P < .01), with no difference between T1 and T2. Conclusions: Bone density between the incisors decreased with progressive distraction (i.e., increasing volume), regardless of the distraction protocol used; thus, both protocols can be used safely in clinical practice. Nevertheless, our results indicate that stress should not be applied to the incisors within 6 months of surgery, regardless of the protocol used. Surgeons and orthodontists should therefore consider immature bone formation and avoid using excessive force to close a diastema.
id UNSP_76e13fec4b07df38441f2457f76c53bf
oai_identifier_str oai:repositorio.unesp.br:11449/229456
network_acronym_str UNSP
network_name_str Repositório Institucional da UNESP
repository_id_str 2946
spelling Bone formation after surgically assisted rapid maxillary expansion: comparison of 2 distraction osteogenesis protocolsObjective: The aim of this study was to compare bone formation between 2 distraction osteogenesis protocols by analyzing cone beam computed tomography (CBCT) scan data. Study Design: In this retrospective study, the efficacy of 2 different surgically assisted rapid maxillary expansion protocols (group 1 [G1], 3 × 0.25 mm/d; group 2 [G2], 1 mm start followed by 2 × 0.25 mm/d) was analyzed using CBCT scans obtained at 3 time points: preoperatively (T0), immediately after surgery (T1), and 6 months after surgery (T2). Bone formation at T0, T1, and T2 was analyzed using the Dolphin Imaging 11 program. Results: At T1, both groups had significantly higher bone volume than at T0 (G1, 135.6 vs 124.65 mm3, respectively; G2, 153.49 vs 118.9 mm3, respectively), with no significant difference between groups (P = .6). Moreover, bone density measured in the region of interest was similar between groups at all 3 time points; however, in both groups, bone density was significantly lower at T1 and T2 than at T0 (P < .01), with no difference between T1 and T2. Conclusions: Bone density between the incisors decreased with progressive distraction (i.e., increasing volume), regardless of the distraction protocol used; thus, both protocols can be used safely in clinical practice. Nevertheless, our results indicate that stress should not be applied to the incisors within 6 months of surgery, regardless of the protocol used. Surgeons and orthodontists should therefore consider immature bone formation and avoid using excessive force to close a diastema.Department of Oral and Maxillofacial Surgery Medical University of Vienna.Department of Diagnosis and Surgery Dental School of Araraquara São Paulo State University.Department of Diagnosis and Surgery Dental School of Araraquara São Paulo State University.Medical University of Vienna.Universidade Estadual Paulista (UNESP)Holzinger, DanielCarvalho, Pedro Henrique de Azambuja [UNESP]dos Santos, José Cleveilton [UNESP]Wagner, FlorianGabrielli, Marisa Aparecida Cabrini [UNESP]Gabrielli, Mario Francisco Real [UNESP]Filho, Valfrido Antonio Pereira [UNESP]2022-04-29T08:32:38Z2022-04-29T08:32:38Z2022-03-01info:eu-repo/semantics/publishedVersioninfo:eu-repo/semantics/article271-276http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.oooo.2021.06.013Oral Surgery, Oral Medicine, Oral Pathology and Oral Radiology, v. 133, n. 3, p. 271-276, 2022.2212-4403http://hdl.handle.net/11449/22945610.1016/j.oooo.2021.06.0132-s2.0-85114250141Scopusreponame:Repositório Institucional da UNESPinstname:Universidade Estadual Paulista (UNESP)instacron:UNESPengOral Surgery, Oral Medicine, Oral Pathology and Oral Radiologyinfo:eu-repo/semantics/openAccess2022-04-29T08:32:38Zoai:repositorio.unesp.br:11449/229456Repositório InstitucionalPUBhttp://repositorio.unesp.br/oai/requestopendoar:29462024-08-05T14:29:10.616881Repositório Institucional da UNESP - Universidade Estadual Paulista (UNESP)false
dc.title.none.fl_str_mv Bone formation after surgically assisted rapid maxillary expansion: comparison of 2 distraction osteogenesis protocols
title Bone formation after surgically assisted rapid maxillary expansion: comparison of 2 distraction osteogenesis protocols
spellingShingle Bone formation after surgically assisted rapid maxillary expansion: comparison of 2 distraction osteogenesis protocols
Holzinger, Daniel
title_short Bone formation after surgically assisted rapid maxillary expansion: comparison of 2 distraction osteogenesis protocols
title_full Bone formation after surgically assisted rapid maxillary expansion: comparison of 2 distraction osteogenesis protocols
title_fullStr Bone formation after surgically assisted rapid maxillary expansion: comparison of 2 distraction osteogenesis protocols
title_full_unstemmed Bone formation after surgically assisted rapid maxillary expansion: comparison of 2 distraction osteogenesis protocols
title_sort Bone formation after surgically assisted rapid maxillary expansion: comparison of 2 distraction osteogenesis protocols
author Holzinger, Daniel
author_facet Holzinger, Daniel
Carvalho, Pedro Henrique de Azambuja [UNESP]
dos Santos, José Cleveilton [UNESP]
Wagner, Florian
Gabrielli, Marisa Aparecida Cabrini [UNESP]
Gabrielli, Mario Francisco Real [UNESP]
Filho, Valfrido Antonio Pereira [UNESP]
author_role author
author2 Carvalho, Pedro Henrique de Azambuja [UNESP]
dos Santos, José Cleveilton [UNESP]
Wagner, Florian
Gabrielli, Marisa Aparecida Cabrini [UNESP]
Gabrielli, Mario Francisco Real [UNESP]
Filho, Valfrido Antonio Pereira [UNESP]
author2_role author
author
author
author
author
author
dc.contributor.none.fl_str_mv Medical University of Vienna.
Universidade Estadual Paulista (UNESP)
dc.contributor.author.fl_str_mv Holzinger, Daniel
Carvalho, Pedro Henrique de Azambuja [UNESP]
dos Santos, José Cleveilton [UNESP]
Wagner, Florian
Gabrielli, Marisa Aparecida Cabrini [UNESP]
Gabrielli, Mario Francisco Real [UNESP]
Filho, Valfrido Antonio Pereira [UNESP]
description Objective: The aim of this study was to compare bone formation between 2 distraction osteogenesis protocols by analyzing cone beam computed tomography (CBCT) scan data. Study Design: In this retrospective study, the efficacy of 2 different surgically assisted rapid maxillary expansion protocols (group 1 [G1], 3 × 0.25 mm/d; group 2 [G2], 1 mm start followed by 2 × 0.25 mm/d) was analyzed using CBCT scans obtained at 3 time points: preoperatively (T0), immediately after surgery (T1), and 6 months after surgery (T2). Bone formation at T0, T1, and T2 was analyzed using the Dolphin Imaging 11 program. Results: At T1, both groups had significantly higher bone volume than at T0 (G1, 135.6 vs 124.65 mm3, respectively; G2, 153.49 vs 118.9 mm3, respectively), with no significant difference between groups (P = .6). Moreover, bone density measured in the region of interest was similar between groups at all 3 time points; however, in both groups, bone density was significantly lower at T1 and T2 than at T0 (P < .01), with no difference between T1 and T2. Conclusions: Bone density between the incisors decreased with progressive distraction (i.e., increasing volume), regardless of the distraction protocol used; thus, both protocols can be used safely in clinical practice. Nevertheless, our results indicate that stress should not be applied to the incisors within 6 months of surgery, regardless of the protocol used. Surgeons and orthodontists should therefore consider immature bone formation and avoid using excessive force to close a diastema.
publishDate 2022
dc.date.none.fl_str_mv 2022-04-29T08:32:38Z
2022-04-29T08:32:38Z
2022-03-01
dc.type.status.fl_str_mv info:eu-repo/semantics/publishedVersion
dc.type.driver.fl_str_mv info:eu-repo/semantics/article
format article
status_str publishedVersion
dc.identifier.uri.fl_str_mv http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.oooo.2021.06.013
Oral Surgery, Oral Medicine, Oral Pathology and Oral Radiology, v. 133, n. 3, p. 271-276, 2022.
2212-4403
http://hdl.handle.net/11449/229456
10.1016/j.oooo.2021.06.013
2-s2.0-85114250141
url http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.oooo.2021.06.013
http://hdl.handle.net/11449/229456
identifier_str_mv Oral Surgery, Oral Medicine, Oral Pathology and Oral Radiology, v. 133, n. 3, p. 271-276, 2022.
2212-4403
10.1016/j.oooo.2021.06.013
2-s2.0-85114250141
dc.language.iso.fl_str_mv eng
language eng
dc.relation.none.fl_str_mv Oral Surgery, Oral Medicine, Oral Pathology and Oral Radiology
dc.rights.driver.fl_str_mv info:eu-repo/semantics/openAccess
eu_rights_str_mv openAccess
dc.format.none.fl_str_mv 271-276
dc.source.none.fl_str_mv Scopus
reponame:Repositório Institucional da UNESP
instname:Universidade Estadual Paulista (UNESP)
instacron:UNESP
instname_str Universidade Estadual Paulista (UNESP)
instacron_str UNESP
institution UNESP
reponame_str Repositório Institucional da UNESP
collection Repositório Institucional da UNESP
repository.name.fl_str_mv Repositório Institucional da UNESP - Universidade Estadual Paulista (UNESP)
repository.mail.fl_str_mv
_version_ 1808128366000209920