Comparison of Intraosseous and Extraosseous Alveolar Distraction Osteogenesis

Purpose To evaluate and compare intraosseous and extraosseous alveolar distraction osteogenesis. Patients and Methods Twenty-three distractors (13 intraosseous; 10 extraosseous) were placed in 21 patients (9 males, 12 females; age range, 12 to 55 years; mean age, 37.9 years) with alveolar ridge defi...

Ausführliche Beschreibung

Gespeichert in:
Bibliographische Detailangaben
Veröffentlicht in:Journal of oral and maxillofacial surgery 2007-04, Vol.65 (4), p.671-674
Hauptverfasser: Uckan, Sina, DDS, PhD, Oguz, Yener, DDS, Bayram, Burak, DDS
Format: Artikel
Sprache:eng
Schlagworte:
Online-Zugang:Volltext
Tags: Tag hinzufügen
Keine Tags, Fügen Sie den ersten Tag hinzu!
container_end_page 674
container_issue 4
container_start_page 671
container_title Journal of oral and maxillofacial surgery
container_volume 65
creator Uckan, Sina, DDS, PhD
Oguz, Yener, DDS
Bayram, Burak, DDS
description Purpose To evaluate and compare intraosseous and extraosseous alveolar distraction osteogenesis. Patients and Methods Twenty-three distractors (13 intraosseous; 10 extraosseous) were placed in 21 patients (9 males, 12 females; age range, 12 to 55 years; mean age, 37.9 years) with alveolar ridge deficiencies. Periodontal disease and alveolar resorption following tooth removal was the most common reason for alveolar distraction osteogenesis (n = 14). The length of the segments were less than 2 cm in 15 defects, 2 to 4 cm in 2 defects and more than 4 cm in 6 defects. At the end of consolidation period 25 implants were inserted to the intraosseous group and 17 implants to the extraosseous group. Results In 21 patients with 23 distracted sites, the mean alveolar distraction was 11.6 mm (range, 5 to 20 mm). The overall complication rates in the intraosseous and extraosseous groups were 61.5% and 50%, respectively. Complications of both groups were mostly minor (95.8%; tilting of the segment, rod interference), only 1 segment fracture in the intraosseous group (4.2%) was considered as a major complication. The most common minor complication in the intraosseous group was tilting of the distracted segment (38.3%). Rod interference with the opposing arch (30%) was the most common minor complication in the extraosseous group. The survival rates of the implants for intraosseous and extraosseous groups were 88% and 94%, respectively. Although complication rate was higher and implant success rate was lower in the intraosseous group, there was no statistical significance between the groups ( P > .05). Conclusion Intraosseous and extraosseous alveolar distractors presented no statistically significant complication rates and implant success rates. The clinician must choose an ideal size and type of the distractor according to the defect size, shape, patient tolerance, and distance to the opposing arch.
doi_str_mv 10.1016/j.joms.2006.04.045
format Article
fullrecord <record><control><sourceid>proquest_cross</sourceid><recordid>TN_cdi_proquest_miscellaneous_70302179</recordid><sourceformat>XML</sourceformat><sourcesystem>PC</sourcesystem><els_id>S0278239106013541</els_id><sourcerecordid>70302179</sourcerecordid><originalsourceid>FETCH-LOGICAL-c439t-eebe67ec21ddf8792f77b4abcb31ac17b1e4167222229fcd23000b7bb3250d723</originalsourceid><addsrcrecordid>eNp9kVGL1DAQx4Mo3nr6BXyQvuhb15mkbVoQ4VjvzoOTe1CfQ5pOJbVt1kz38L69Kbtw4oPDwMDw-08m_xHiNcIWAav3w3YIE28lQLWFImX5RGywVJiXUKqnYgNS17lUDZ6JF8wDAGKpq-fiDLWqalXJjfiyC9PeRs9hzkKf3cxLtIGZwoEzO3fZ5e-_GhfjPYXRxuyT59R2i0-qO14o_KCZ2PNL8ay3I9OrUz0X368uv-0-57d31ze7i9vcFapZcqKWKk1OYtf1tW5kr3Vb2Na1Cq1D3SIVWGm5RtO7TioAaHXbKllCp6U6F--Oc_cx_DoQL2by7Ggc7bwuajQokKibBMoj6GL6RKTe7KOfbHwwCGY10QxmNdGsJhooUpZJ9OY0_dBO1D1KTq4l4O0JsOzs2Ec7O8-PXF2puih14j4cOUpe3HuKhp2n2VHnI7nFdMH_f4-P_8jd6GefXvxJD8RDOMQ5uWzQsDRgvq7nXq8NFaAqC1R_AOjEpfY</addsrcrecordid><sourcetype>Aggregation Database</sourcetype><iscdi>true</iscdi><recordtype>article</recordtype><pqid>70302179</pqid></control><display><type>article</type><title>Comparison of Intraosseous and Extraosseous Alveolar Distraction Osteogenesis</title><source>MEDLINE</source><source>Elsevier ScienceDirect Journals</source><creator>Uckan, Sina, DDS, PhD ; Oguz, Yener, DDS ; Bayram, Burak, DDS</creator><creatorcontrib>Uckan, Sina, DDS, PhD ; Oguz, Yener, DDS ; Bayram, Burak, DDS</creatorcontrib><description>Purpose To evaluate and compare intraosseous and extraosseous alveolar distraction osteogenesis. Patients and Methods Twenty-three distractors (13 intraosseous; 10 extraosseous) were placed in 21 patients (9 males, 12 females; age range, 12 to 55 years; mean age, 37.9 years) with alveolar ridge deficiencies. Periodontal disease and alveolar resorption following tooth removal was the most common reason for alveolar distraction osteogenesis (n = 14). The length of the segments were less than 2 cm in 15 defects, 2 to 4 cm in 2 defects and more than 4 cm in 6 defects. At the end of consolidation period 25 implants were inserted to the intraosseous group and 17 implants to the extraosseous group. Results In 21 patients with 23 distracted sites, the mean alveolar distraction was 11.6 mm (range, 5 to 20 mm). The overall complication rates in the intraosseous and extraosseous groups were 61.5% and 50%, respectively. Complications of both groups were mostly minor (95.8%; tilting of the segment, rod interference), only 1 segment fracture in the intraosseous group (4.2%) was considered as a major complication. The most common minor complication in the intraosseous group was tilting of the distracted segment (38.3%). Rod interference with the opposing arch (30%) was the most common minor complication in the extraosseous group. The survival rates of the implants for intraosseous and extraosseous groups were 88% and 94%, respectively. Although complication rate was higher and implant success rate was lower in the intraosseous group, there was no statistical significance between the groups ( P &gt; .05). Conclusion Intraosseous and extraosseous alveolar distractors presented no statistically significant complication rates and implant success rates. The clinician must choose an ideal size and type of the distractor according to the defect size, shape, patient tolerance, and distance to the opposing arch.</description><identifier>ISSN: 0278-2391</identifier><identifier>EISSN: 1531-5053</identifier><identifier>DOI: 10.1016/j.joms.2006.04.045</identifier><identifier>PMID: 17368362</identifier><identifier>CODEN: JOMSDA</identifier><language>eng</language><publisher>New York, NY: Elsevier Inc</publisher><subject>Adolescent ; Adult ; Alveolar Ridge Augmentation - methods ; Biological and medical sciences ; Child ; Dentistry ; External Fixators ; Female ; Humans ; Internal Fixators ; Male ; Medical sciences ; Middle Aged ; Osteogenesis, Distraction - instrumentation ; Otorhinolaryngology. Stomatology ; Surgery ; Treatment Outcome</subject><ispartof>Journal of oral and maxillofacial surgery, 2007-04, Vol.65 (4), p.671-674</ispartof><rights>American Association of Oral and Maxillofacial Surgeons</rights><rights>2007 American Association of Oral and Maxillofacial Surgeons</rights><rights>2007 INIST-CNRS</rights><lds50>peer_reviewed</lds50><woscitedreferencessubscribed>false</woscitedreferencessubscribed><citedby>FETCH-LOGICAL-c439t-eebe67ec21ddf8792f77b4abcb31ac17b1e4167222229fcd23000b7bb3250d723</citedby><cites>FETCH-LOGICAL-c439t-eebe67ec21ddf8792f77b4abcb31ac17b1e4167222229fcd23000b7bb3250d723</cites></display><links><openurl>$$Topenurl_article</openurl><openurlfulltext>$$Topenurlfull_article</openurlfulltext><thumbnail>$$Tsyndetics_thumb_exl</thumbnail><linktohtml>$$Uhttps://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0278239106013541$$EHTML$$P50$$Gelsevier$$H</linktohtml><link.rule.ids>314,776,780,3536,27903,27904,65309</link.rule.ids><backlink>$$Uhttp://pascal-francis.inist.fr/vibad/index.php?action=getRecordDetail&amp;idt=18638457$$DView record in Pascal Francis$$Hfree_for_read</backlink><backlink>$$Uhttps://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/17368362$$D View this record in MEDLINE/PubMed$$Hfree_for_read</backlink></links><search><creatorcontrib>Uckan, Sina, DDS, PhD</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Oguz, Yener, DDS</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Bayram, Burak, DDS</creatorcontrib><title>Comparison of Intraosseous and Extraosseous Alveolar Distraction Osteogenesis</title><title>Journal of oral and maxillofacial surgery</title><addtitle>J Oral Maxillofac Surg</addtitle><description>Purpose To evaluate and compare intraosseous and extraosseous alveolar distraction osteogenesis. Patients and Methods Twenty-three distractors (13 intraosseous; 10 extraosseous) were placed in 21 patients (9 males, 12 females; age range, 12 to 55 years; mean age, 37.9 years) with alveolar ridge deficiencies. Periodontal disease and alveolar resorption following tooth removal was the most common reason for alveolar distraction osteogenesis (n = 14). The length of the segments were less than 2 cm in 15 defects, 2 to 4 cm in 2 defects and more than 4 cm in 6 defects. At the end of consolidation period 25 implants were inserted to the intraosseous group and 17 implants to the extraosseous group. Results In 21 patients with 23 distracted sites, the mean alveolar distraction was 11.6 mm (range, 5 to 20 mm). The overall complication rates in the intraosseous and extraosseous groups were 61.5% and 50%, respectively. Complications of both groups were mostly minor (95.8%; tilting of the segment, rod interference), only 1 segment fracture in the intraosseous group (4.2%) was considered as a major complication. The most common minor complication in the intraosseous group was tilting of the distracted segment (38.3%). Rod interference with the opposing arch (30%) was the most common minor complication in the extraosseous group. The survival rates of the implants for intraosseous and extraosseous groups were 88% and 94%, respectively. Although complication rate was higher and implant success rate was lower in the intraosseous group, there was no statistical significance between the groups ( P &gt; .05). Conclusion Intraosseous and extraosseous alveolar distractors presented no statistically significant complication rates and implant success rates. The clinician must choose an ideal size and type of the distractor according to the defect size, shape, patient tolerance, and distance to the opposing arch.</description><subject>Adolescent</subject><subject>Adult</subject><subject>Alveolar Ridge Augmentation - methods</subject><subject>Biological and medical sciences</subject><subject>Child</subject><subject>Dentistry</subject><subject>External Fixators</subject><subject>Female</subject><subject>Humans</subject><subject>Internal Fixators</subject><subject>Male</subject><subject>Medical sciences</subject><subject>Middle Aged</subject><subject>Osteogenesis, Distraction - instrumentation</subject><subject>Otorhinolaryngology. Stomatology</subject><subject>Surgery</subject><subject>Treatment Outcome</subject><issn>0278-2391</issn><issn>1531-5053</issn><fulltext>true</fulltext><rsrctype>article</rsrctype><creationdate>2007</creationdate><recordtype>article</recordtype><sourceid>EIF</sourceid><recordid>eNp9kVGL1DAQx4Mo3nr6BXyQvuhb15mkbVoQ4VjvzoOTe1CfQ5pOJbVt1kz38L69Kbtw4oPDwMDw-08m_xHiNcIWAav3w3YIE28lQLWFImX5RGywVJiXUKqnYgNS17lUDZ6JF8wDAGKpq-fiDLWqalXJjfiyC9PeRs9hzkKf3cxLtIGZwoEzO3fZ5e-_GhfjPYXRxuyT59R2i0-qO14o_KCZ2PNL8ay3I9OrUz0X368uv-0-57d31ze7i9vcFapZcqKWKk1OYtf1tW5kr3Vb2Na1Cq1D3SIVWGm5RtO7TioAaHXbKllCp6U6F--Oc_cx_DoQL2by7Ggc7bwuajQokKibBMoj6GL6RKTe7KOfbHwwCGY10QxmNdGsJhooUpZJ9OY0_dBO1D1KTq4l4O0JsOzs2Ec7O8-PXF2puih14j4cOUpe3HuKhp2n2VHnI7nFdMH_f4-P_8jd6GefXvxJD8RDOMQ5uWzQsDRgvq7nXq8NFaAqC1R_AOjEpfY</recordid><startdate>20070401</startdate><enddate>20070401</enddate><creator>Uckan, Sina, DDS, PhD</creator><creator>Oguz, Yener, DDS</creator><creator>Bayram, Burak, DDS</creator><general>Elsevier Inc</general><general>Elsevier</general><scope>IQODW</scope><scope>CGR</scope><scope>CUY</scope><scope>CVF</scope><scope>ECM</scope><scope>EIF</scope><scope>NPM</scope><scope>AAYXX</scope><scope>CITATION</scope><scope>7X8</scope><scope>8BM</scope></search><sort><creationdate>20070401</creationdate><title>Comparison of Intraosseous and Extraosseous Alveolar Distraction Osteogenesis</title><author>Uckan, Sina, DDS, PhD ; Oguz, Yener, DDS ; Bayram, Burak, DDS</author></sort><facets><frbrtype>5</frbrtype><frbrgroupid>cdi_FETCH-LOGICAL-c439t-eebe67ec21ddf8792f77b4abcb31ac17b1e4167222229fcd23000b7bb3250d723</frbrgroupid><rsrctype>articles</rsrctype><prefilter>articles</prefilter><language>eng</language><creationdate>2007</creationdate><topic>Adolescent</topic><topic>Adult</topic><topic>Alveolar Ridge Augmentation - methods</topic><topic>Biological and medical sciences</topic><topic>Child</topic><topic>Dentistry</topic><topic>External Fixators</topic><topic>Female</topic><topic>Humans</topic><topic>Internal Fixators</topic><topic>Male</topic><topic>Medical sciences</topic><topic>Middle Aged</topic><topic>Osteogenesis, Distraction - instrumentation</topic><topic>Otorhinolaryngology. Stomatology</topic><topic>Surgery</topic><topic>Treatment Outcome</topic><toplevel>peer_reviewed</toplevel><toplevel>online_resources</toplevel><creatorcontrib>Uckan, Sina, DDS, PhD</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Oguz, Yener, DDS</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Bayram, Burak, DDS</creatorcontrib><collection>Pascal-Francis</collection><collection>Medline</collection><collection>MEDLINE</collection><collection>MEDLINE (Ovid)</collection><collection>MEDLINE</collection><collection>MEDLINE</collection><collection>PubMed</collection><collection>CrossRef</collection><collection>MEDLINE - Academic</collection><collection>ComDisDome</collection><jtitle>Journal of oral and maxillofacial surgery</jtitle></facets><delivery><delcategory>Remote Search Resource</delcategory><fulltext>fulltext</fulltext></delivery><addata><au>Uckan, Sina, DDS, PhD</au><au>Oguz, Yener, DDS</au><au>Bayram, Burak, DDS</au><format>journal</format><genre>article</genre><ristype>JOUR</ristype><atitle>Comparison of Intraosseous and Extraosseous Alveolar Distraction Osteogenesis</atitle><jtitle>Journal of oral and maxillofacial surgery</jtitle><addtitle>J Oral Maxillofac Surg</addtitle><date>2007-04-01</date><risdate>2007</risdate><volume>65</volume><issue>4</issue><spage>671</spage><epage>674</epage><pages>671-674</pages><issn>0278-2391</issn><eissn>1531-5053</eissn><coden>JOMSDA</coden><abstract>Purpose To evaluate and compare intraosseous and extraosseous alveolar distraction osteogenesis. Patients and Methods Twenty-three distractors (13 intraosseous; 10 extraosseous) were placed in 21 patients (9 males, 12 females; age range, 12 to 55 years; mean age, 37.9 years) with alveolar ridge deficiencies. Periodontal disease and alveolar resorption following tooth removal was the most common reason for alveolar distraction osteogenesis (n = 14). The length of the segments were less than 2 cm in 15 defects, 2 to 4 cm in 2 defects and more than 4 cm in 6 defects. At the end of consolidation period 25 implants were inserted to the intraosseous group and 17 implants to the extraosseous group. Results In 21 patients with 23 distracted sites, the mean alveolar distraction was 11.6 mm (range, 5 to 20 mm). The overall complication rates in the intraosseous and extraosseous groups were 61.5% and 50%, respectively. Complications of both groups were mostly minor (95.8%; tilting of the segment, rod interference), only 1 segment fracture in the intraosseous group (4.2%) was considered as a major complication. The most common minor complication in the intraosseous group was tilting of the distracted segment (38.3%). Rod interference with the opposing arch (30%) was the most common minor complication in the extraosseous group. The survival rates of the implants for intraosseous and extraosseous groups were 88% and 94%, respectively. Although complication rate was higher and implant success rate was lower in the intraosseous group, there was no statistical significance between the groups ( P &gt; .05). Conclusion Intraosseous and extraosseous alveolar distractors presented no statistically significant complication rates and implant success rates. The clinician must choose an ideal size and type of the distractor according to the defect size, shape, patient tolerance, and distance to the opposing arch.</abstract><cop>New York, NY</cop><pub>Elsevier Inc</pub><pmid>17368362</pmid><doi>10.1016/j.joms.2006.04.045</doi><tpages>4</tpages></addata></record>
fulltext fulltext
identifier ISSN: 0278-2391
ispartof Journal of oral and maxillofacial surgery, 2007-04, Vol.65 (4), p.671-674
issn 0278-2391
1531-5053
language eng
recordid cdi_proquest_miscellaneous_70302179
source MEDLINE; Elsevier ScienceDirect Journals
subjects Adolescent
Adult
Alveolar Ridge Augmentation - methods
Biological and medical sciences
Child
Dentistry
External Fixators
Female
Humans
Internal Fixators
Male
Medical sciences
Middle Aged
Osteogenesis, Distraction - instrumentation
Otorhinolaryngology. Stomatology
Surgery
Treatment Outcome
title Comparison of Intraosseous and Extraosseous Alveolar Distraction Osteogenesis
url https://sfx.bib-bvb.de/sfx_tum?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&ctx_tim=2025-01-26T23%3A57%3A35IST&url_ver=Z39.88-2004&url_ctx_fmt=infofi/fmt:kev:mtx:ctx&rfr_id=info:sid/primo.exlibrisgroup.com:primo3-Article-proquest_cross&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:journal&rft.genre=article&rft.atitle=Comparison%20of%20Intraosseous%20and%20Extraosseous%20Alveolar%20Distraction%20Osteogenesis&rft.jtitle=Journal%20of%20oral%20and%20maxillofacial%20surgery&rft.au=Uckan,%20Sina,%20DDS,%20PhD&rft.date=2007-04-01&rft.volume=65&rft.issue=4&rft.spage=671&rft.epage=674&rft.pages=671-674&rft.issn=0278-2391&rft.eissn=1531-5053&rft.coden=JOMSDA&rft_id=info:doi/10.1016/j.joms.2006.04.045&rft_dat=%3Cproquest_cross%3E70302179%3C/proquest_cross%3E%3Curl%3E%3C/url%3E&disable_directlink=true&sfx.directlink=off&sfx.report_link=0&rft_id=info:oai/&rft_pqid=70302179&rft_id=info:pmid/17368362&rft_els_id=S0278239106013541&rfr_iscdi=true