Thirty Years Later: What Has Craniofacial Distraction Osteogenesis Surgery Replaced?

Hopper R. A., Ettinger R. E., Purnell C. A., Dover M. S., Pereira A. R., Tuncbilek G.

PLASTIC AND RECONSTRUCTIVE SURGERY, vol.145, no.6, 2020 (SCI-Expanded) identifier identifier identifier

  • Publication Type: Article / Article
  • Volume: 145 Issue: 6
  • Publication Date: 2020
  • Doi Number: 10.1097/prs.0000000000006821
  • Journal Name: PLASTIC AND RECONSTRUCTIVE SURGERY
  • Journal Indexes: Science Citation Index Expanded (SCI-EXPANDED), Scopus, EMBASE, Gender Studies Database, MEDLINE, MLA - Modern Language Association Database
  • Hacettepe University Affiliated: No

Abstract

Learning Objectives: After studying this article and viewing the video, the participant should be able to: 1. Compare the relative stability and neurosensory changes following mandible distraction osteogenesis with those after traditional advancement and fixation. 2. Describe the condylar changes that can occur after mandible distraction osteogenesis and list three ways to mitigate these changes. 3. Propose clinical situations where segmental or rotational movements of the midface may allow improved outcomes compared to en bloc linear distraction advancement. 4. Summarize the advantages and risks associated with anterior and posterior cranial distraction osteogenesis compared to traditional one-stage expansion.