A Simple Mechanism for Measuring and Adjusting Distraction Forces During Maxillary Advancement
Purpose: Direct measurement of distraction forces on the craniofacial skeleton has never been reported. The present report describes the development of a method of assessing and adjusting traction forces applied through maxillary distraction osteogenesis. Materials and Methods: A simple mechanism to...
Saved in:
| Main Authors: | , |
|---|---|
| Format: | Journal |
| Published: |
2018
|
| Subjects: | |
| Online Access: | https://www.scopus.com/inward/record.uri?partnerID=HzOxMe3b&scp=70049088323&origin=inward http://cmuir.cmu.ac.th/jspui/handle/6653943832/49028 |
| Tags: |
Add Tag
No Tags, Be the first to tag this record!
|
| Institution: | Chiang Mai University |
| Summary: | Purpose: Direct measurement of distraction forces on the craniofacial skeleton has never been reported. The present report describes the development of a method of assessing and adjusting traction forces applied through maxillary distraction osteogenesis. Materials and Methods: A simple mechanism to measure and adjust tension force during maxillary distraction osteogenesis was developed and connected bilaterally to the traction screws of a rigid external distraction device. Measurements were carried out before and after activation using a Shimpo (Nidec-Shimpo America Corporation, Itasca, IL) force gauge in 4 patients (2 with unilateral cleft lip and/or palate, 1 with bilateral cleft lip and palate, and 1 with noncleft) during the distraction process. Activation was performed twice a day at a rate of 1 mm/day. Results: The average maximum force applied throughout the distraction period was 42.5 N (range 16.4 to 65.3 N), with increments, after activation, averaging 10.5 N (range 7.9 to 15.7 N). In patients with unilateral cleft lip and/or palate, distraction forces on the larger segment were 65.1% higher than on the lesser segment. A differential pattern of forces was also observed in the patients with asymmetric noncleft. However, the differential forces between lateral segments were not observed in the patient with bilateral cleft lip and palate. During the activation period, distraction forces progressively increased, whereas the amount of maxillary movement decreased. Pain and discomfort were reported with high forces. Conclusions: Through this mechanism, direct measurement and adjustment of distraction forces during maxillary advancement was possible. The unbalanced pattern of forces observed in patients with cleft suggests the necessity of individual adjustments for controlling pain and clinical symptoms. Accordingly, assessment of distraction forces during maxillary distraction osteogenesis is extremely helpful in understanding the biomechanics of the distraction process. © 2009 American Association of Oral and Maxillofacial Surgeons. |
|---|