Contemporary Clinical Dentistry
  Home | About us | Editorial board | Search
Ahead of print | Current Issue | Archives | Advertise
Instructions | Online submission| Contact us | Subscribe |


Login  | Users Online: 1214  Print this pageEmail this pageSmall font sizeDefault font sizeIncrease font size 

Year : 2017  |  Volume : 8  |  Issue : 2  |  Page : 236-243

Profile changes and stability following distraction osteogenesis with rigid external distraction in adult cleft lip and palate deformities

1 Department of Oral & Maxillofacial Surgery, Amrita School of Dentistry, Amrita University, Kochi, Kerala, India
2 Department of Craniofacial Surgery, Aster Medcity, Kochi, Kerala, India
3 Department of Orthodontics, Amrita School of Dentistry, Amrita University, Kochi, Kerala, India

Correspondence Address:
Jaeson M Painatt
Department of Oral and Maxillofacial Surgery, Amrita School of Dentistry, Kochi - 682 024, Kerala
Login to access the Email id

Source of Support: None, Conflict of Interest: None

DOI: 10.4103/ccd.ccd_1164_16

Rights and Permissions

Objectives: The objective of this study is to analyze the hard and soft-tissue profile changes as well as the upper airway changes after distraction osteogenesis (DO) using rigid external distraction device in adult cleft lip and palate (CLP) patients. The study also evaluates the stability of the surgical result. Materials and Methods: Three lateral cephalometric radiographs were taken: Predistraction (T1), postdistraction (T2), and 1 year after distractor removal (T3). The treatment changes (T1 vs. T2) and the stability (T2 vs. T3) were analyzed. The overall treatment changes after 1 year were also evaluated (T1 vs. T3). The lateral cephalograms were digitally analyzed with the help of software named Dolphin. Statistical Analysis Used: Wilcoxon Signed-Ranks test was used, and the probability value (P value) of 0.05 was considered as statistically significant level. Results: Eleven adult patients with CLP were retrospectively analyzed. After distraction, there was a significant mean maxillary advancement of 14 mm (P < 0.01) from a T1 value of 73.54 ± 10.38 to a T2 value of 88.2 ± 10.49. The lower facial height and the incisor exposure were significantly increased. The nasolabial angle had a significant improvement of 24.5° (P < 0.01) from a T1 value of 56.6 ± 21.03 to a T2 value of 81.18 ± 14.4.The upper airway was significantly improved by 3.7 mm (P < 0.01) with a T1 value of 13.5 ± 3.8 to a T2 value of 17.2 ± 3.66. After 1-year follow-up, there was a significant maxillary relapse of 3.20 mm (P < 0.05) from a T2 value of 8.29 ± 6.84 to a T3 value of 5.09 ± 5.59. However, the soft-tissue profile and upper airway remained stable. Conclusion: The clinician should have an understanding of the related hard and soft tissues as well as airway changes which may assist him when planning for maxillary advancement for CLP patients with DO. There were significant improvements immediately after distraction, but during the 1-year follow-up, some relapse was seen. This stressed on the need for overcorrection of about 35%–40% for adult CLP patients.

Print this article     Email this article
 Next article
 Previous article
 Table of Contents

 Similar in PUBMED
   Search Pubmed for
   Search in Google Scholar for
 Related articles
 Citation Manager
 Access Statistics
 Reader Comments
 Email Alert *
 Add to My List *
 * Requires registration (Free)

 Article Access Statistics
    PDF Downloaded181    
    Comments [Add]    

Recommend this journal