Distraksiyon Osteogenezi

Öz

Distraksiyon osteogenezi (DO), kontrollü mekanik gerilim altında kademeli olarak ayrılan kemik segmentleri arasında yeni kemik oluşumunu sağlayan biyolojik bir süreçtir. Başlangıçta uzun kemiklerin uzatılması amacıyla geliştirilmiş olan bu teknik, mandibular yetersizliklerin tedavisinde başarıyla uygulanmasının ardından kraniyomaksillofasiyal cerrahide geniş bir klinik kullanım alanı kazanmıştır. Distraksiyon osteogenezinin temelini, Ilizarov tarafından tanımlanan gerilim-stres prensibi oluşturmaktadır. Bu prensibe göre, kademeli mekanik distraksiyon yalnızca osteogenezi uyarmakla kalmaz, aynı zamanda çevre yumuşak dokularda da distraksiyon histogenezi olarak adlandırılan adaptif değişiklikleri başlatır. Distraksiyon osteogenezi süreci dört temel evreden oluşur: osteotomi, latent dönem, distraksiyon dönemi ve konsolidasyon dönemi. Bu evreler sırasında kontrollü mekanik kuvvetler anjiyogenez, hücresel proliferasyon ve distraksiyon boşluğunda progresif kemik rejenerasyonunu uyarır. Distraksiyon hızının ve ritminin doğru şekilde ayarlanması optimal kemik oluşumu için kritik öneme sahiptir. Aşırı veya yetersiz mekanik uyarı ise iskemi, fibröz kaynama veya erken konsolidasyon gibi komplikasyonlara yol açabilir. Kraniyomaksillofasiyal alanda distraksiyon osteogenezi; mandibular hipoplazi, kraniyosinostoz ile ilişkili anomaliler, kraniyofasiyal mikrozomi ve alveolar kemik yüksekliği yetersizlikleri gibi çeşitli iskeletsel deformitelerin tedavisinde önemli bir tedavi yöntemi haline gelmiştir. Geleneksel cerrahi yöntemlerle karşılaştırıldığında, kemik ve yumuşak dokuların eş zamanlı genişlemesini sağlaması, kemik grefti gereksinimini azaltması ve daha düşük nüks oranları göstermesi gibi önemli avantajlar sunmaktadır. Bununla birlikte distraksiyon osteogenezi; intraoperatif, distraksiyon ve konsolidasyon dönemlerinde ortaya çıkabilecek çeşitli komplikasyonlarla ilişkilidir. Bu komplikasyonlar arasında nörosensoriyel bozukluklar, distraksiyon cihazı arızaları, enfeksiyon, yetersiz ossifikasyon, nüks ve temporomandibular eklem problemleri yer almaktadır. Bu nedenle, başarılı ve öngörülebilir sonuçlar elde edilebilmesi için dikkatli hasta seçimi, doğru cerrahi planlama ve uygun postoperatif takip büyük önem taşımaktadır. Sonuç olarak, distraksiyon osteogenezi kraniyomaksillofasiyal rekonstrüksiyonda son yılların en önemli gelişmelerinden biri olarak kabul edilmekte olup modern ortodontik ve cerrahi tedavi yaklaşımlarında önemli bir yer tutmaktadır.

Anahtar Kelimeler

• Kraniyofasiyal distraksiyon
• Kemik rejenerasyonu
• Ortodontik tedavi
• Kraniyofasiyal deformiteler

DISTRACTION OSTEOGENESIS

Öz

Abstract Distraction osteogenesis (DO) is a biological process that enables the formation of new bone between gradually separated bone segments under controlled mechanical tension. Initially developed for the lengthening of long bones, the technique gained widespread clinical relevance in cranio-maxillofacial surgery following its successful application in mandibular deficiencies. The principle of DO is based on the tension-stress effect described by Ilizarov, where gradual mechanical distraction stimulates osteogenesis as well as adaptive changes in surrounding soft tissues, a phenomenon known as distraction histogenesis. The biological process of distraction osteogenesis consists of four main stages: osteotomy, latent period, distraction period, and consolidation. During these phases, controlled mechanical forces promote angiogenesis, cellular proliferation, and progressive bone regeneration within the distraction gap. Proper regulation of distraction rate and rhythm is essential for optimal bone formation, while excessive or insufficient mechanical stimulation may lead to complications such as ischemia, fibrous union, or premature consolidation. In cranio-maxillofacial practice, DO has become an important treatment modality for various skeletal deformities and deficiencies, including mandibular hypoplasia, craniosynostosis-related anomalies, craniofacial microsomia, and vertical alveolar bone deficiencies. Compared with conventional surgical approaches, distraction osteogenesis offers several advantages such as simultaneous expansion of bone and surrounding soft tissues, reduced need for bone grafting, and lower relapse rates. Despite these advantages, DO is associated with potential complications that may arise during intraoperative, distraction, or consolidation phases. These include neurosensory disturbances, device malfunction, infection, incomplete ossification, relapse, and temporomandibular joint complications. Therefore, careful patient selection, precise surgical planning, and appropriate postoperative management are critical for achieving predictable outcomes. Overall, distraction osteogenesis represents a highly effective and versatile technique for cranio-maxillofacial reconstruction and continues to play an essential role in modern orthodontic and surgical treatment strategies.

Anahtar Kelimeler

• Craniofacial distraction
• Bone regeneration
• Orthodontic treatment
• Craniofacial deformities

Kaynakça

1. 1. Cherkashin AM. Distraction Osteogenesis: Origins and Evolution. Distraction Osteogenesis and Tissue Engineering. 1998;1-35
2. 2. Peltier LF. A brief history of traction. The Journal of Bone and Joint Surgery. 1968;50(8): 1603–1617.
3. 3. Shankar Natu S, Ali I, Alam S, Yada Giri K, Agarwal A, Ajit Kulkarni V. The biology of distraction osteogenesis for correction of mandibular and craniomaxillofacial defects: A review. Dental Research Journal. 2014;11(1):16-26
4. 4. Guerrero CA, Bell WK, Contasti GL, Rodríguez AM. Intraoral mandibular distraction osteogenesis. Seminars in Orthodontics. 1999;5(1):35–40. https://doi.org/10.1016/S1073-8746(99)80040-1
5. 5. Ilizarov GA, Soĭbel’man LM. Clinical and experimental data on bloodless lengthening of lower extremities. Eksperimental’naia Khirurgiia i Anesteziologiia. 1969;14(4):27–32.
6. 6. Ilizarov GA. The principles of the Ilizarov method. Bulletin of the Hospital for Joint Diseases Orthopaedic Institute. 1988; 48(1): 1–11.
7. 7. Ilizarov GA. The tension-stress effect on the genesis and growth of tissues. Part I. The influence of stability of fixation and soft-tissue preservation. Clinical Orthopaedics and Related Research. 1989a; 238:249–281.
8. 8. Ilizarov GA. (1989b). The tension-stress effect on the genesis and growth of tissues: Part II. The influence of the rate and frequency of distraction. Clinical Orthopaedics and Related Research. 1989b; 239: 263–285.

9. 9. Ilizarov GA. Some possibilities with our method for treating damage to and disorders of locomotor apparatus. The Journal of Craniofacial Surgery. 1995;6(5): 352–354. https://doi.org/10.1097/00001665-199509000-00002
10. 10. Gubin A, Borzunov D, Malkova T. Ilizarov Method for Bone Lengthening and Defect Management Review of Contemporary Literature. Bulletin of the Hospital for Joint Disease. 2013; 74(2): 145–154.
11. 11. Codivilla A. (1994). On the means of lengthening, in the lower limbs, the muscles and tissues which are shortened through deformity. 1904. Clinical Orthopaedics and Related Research. 1994;301: 4–9.
12. 12. Li Y, Chen SK, Li L, Qin L, Wang XL, Lai YX. Bone defect animal models for testing efficacy of bone substitute biomaterials. Journal of Orthopaedic Translation. 2015; 3(3): 95–104. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jot.2015.05.002
13. 13. Dimitriou R, Jones E, McGonagle D, Giannoudis PV. Bone regeneration: current concepts and future directions. BMC Medicine. 2011; 9: 66. https://doi.org/10.1186/1741-7015-9-66
14. 14. Moore DC, Leblanc CW, Müller R, Crisco JJ, Ehrlich MG. Physiologic weight-bearing increases new vessel formation during distraction osteogenesis: a micro-tomographic imaging study. Journal of Orthopaedic Research : Official Publication of the Orthopaedic Research Society. 2003; 21(3): 489–496. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0736-0266(02)00234-6
15. 15. Aronson J. Current Concepts Review - Limb-Lengthening, Skeletal Reconstruction, and Bone Transport with the Ilizarov Method*. The Journal of Bone & Joint Surgery. 1997; 79(8): 1243–1258. https://doi.org/10.2106/00004623-199708000-00019
16. 16. McCarthy JG, Schreiber J, Karp N, Thorne CH, Grayson BH. Lengthening the Human Mandible by Gradual Distraction. Plastic and Reconstructive Surgery. 1992; 89(1): 1–8. https://doi.org/10.1097/00006534-199289010-00001
17. 17. Liu Z, Yang J, Zhou C, Liu Y, Luo E. A bibliometric analysis of research on craniomaxillofacial distraction osteogenesis from 2000 to 2021. Frontiers in Surgery. 2022;9. https://doi.org/10.3389/fsurg.2022.932164
18. 18. Tong H, Liu L, Tang X, Song T, Yin N, Zhang Z, Zhao Z. Midface Distraction Osteogenesis Using a Modified External Device With Elastic Distraction for Crouzon Syndrome. Journal of Craniofacial Surgery. 2017;28(6):1573–1577. https://doi.org/10.1097/SCS.0000000000003377
19. 19. Akizuki T, Komuro Y, Ohmori K. Distraction osteogenesis for craniosynostosis. Neurosurgical Focus. 2000; 9(3): 1–7. https://doi.org/10.3171/foc.2000.9.3.2
20. 20. Urban IA, Montero E, Monje A, Sanz‐Sánchez I. Effectiveness of vertical ridge augmentation interventions: A systematic review and meta‐analysis. Journal of Clinical Periodontology. 2019; 46(S21): 319–339. https://doi.org/10.1111/jcpe.13061
21. 21. Toledano-Serrabona J, Sánchez-Garcés MÁ, Sánchez-Torres A, Gay-Escoda C. Alveolar distraction osteogenesis for dental implant treatments of the vertical bone atrophy: A systematic review. Medicina Oral, Patologia Oral y Cirugia Bucal. 2019; 24(1): e70–e75. https://doi.org/10.4317/medoral.22750
22. 22. Suh J, Choi TH, Baek SH, Kim JC, Kim S. Mandibular Distraction in Unilateral Craniofacial Microsomia. Plastic and Reconstructive Surgery. 2013;132(5): 1244–1252. https://doi.org/10.1097/PRS.0b013e3182a48cf9
23. 23. Gosain AK. Distraction Osteogenesis of the Craniofacial Skeleton. Plastic and Reconstructive Surgery. 2001;107(1): 278–280. https://doi.org/10.1097/00006534-200101000-00050
24. 24. Saman M, Abramowitz JM, Buchbinder D. Mandibular osteotomies and distraction osteogenesis: evolution and current advances. JAMA Facial Plastic Surgery. 2013;15(3):167–173. https://doi.org/10.1001/jamafacial.2013.44
25. 25. Annino DJ, Goguen LA, Karmody CS. Distraction osteogenesis for reconstruction of mandibular symphyseal defects. Archives of Otolaryngology--Head & Neck Surgery. 1994;120(9): 911–916. https://doi.org/10.1001/archotol.1994.01880330005002
26. 26. Maheshwari S, Verma S, Tariq Mohd, Prabhat K, Kumar S. Biomechanics and orthodontic treatment protocol in maxillofacial distraction osteogenesis. National Journal of Maxillofacial Surgery. 2011;2(2): 120. https://doi.org/10.4103/0975-5950.94464
27. 27. Aronson J. The Biology of Distraction Osteogenesis. In Chapman MW (Ed.), Operative Orthopedics. 1993;2: 873–887.
28. 28. Alman BA, Kelley SP, Nam D. Heal thyself: using endogenous regeneration to repair bone. Tissue Engineering. Part B, Reviews. 2011;17(6):431–436. https://doi.org/10.1089/ten.TEB.2011.0189
29. 29. Ai-Aql ZS, Alagl AS, Graves DT, Gerstenfeld LC, Einhorn TA. Molecular mechanisms controlling bone formation during fracture healing and distraction osteogenesis. Journal of Dental Research. 2008;87(2):107–118. https://doi.org/10.1177/154405910808700215
30. 30. Cho TJ, Kim JA, Chung CY, Yoo WJ, Gerstenfeld LC, Einhorn TA, Choi IH. Expression and role of interleukin-6 in distraction osteogenesis. Calcified Tissue International. 2007; 80(3): 192–200. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00223-006-0240-y
31. 31. Runyan CM, Gabrick KS. Biology of Bone Formation, Fracture Healing, and Distraction Osteogenesis. The Journal of Craniofacial Surgery. 2017;28(5):1380–1389. https://doi.org/10.1097/SCS.0000000000003625
32. 32. Marsell R, Einhorn TA. The biology of fracture healing. Injury. 2011; 42(6): 551–555. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.injury.2011.03.031
33. 33. Kon T, Cho TJ., Aizawa T, Yamazaki M, Nooh N, Graves D, Gerstenfeld LC, Einhorn T A. Expression of osteoprotegerin, receptor activator of NF-kappaB ligand (osteoprotegerin ligand) and related proinflammatory cytokines during fracture healing. Journal of Bone and Mineral Research : The Official Journal of the American Society for Bone and Mineral Research, 2001;16(6): 1004–1014. https://doi.org/10.1359/jbmr.2001.16.6.1004
34. 34. Alshahrani I. Biomolecular phases in transverse palatal distraction: A review. Saudi Journal of Biological Sciences, 2018;25(7): 1322–1325. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.sjbs.2018.05.009
35. 35. Yang S, Wang N, Ma Y, Guo S, Guo S, Sun H. Immunomodulatory effects and mechanisms of distraction osteogenesis. In International Journal of Oral Science. 2022;14 (4). https://doi.org/10.1038/s41368-021-00156-y
36. 36. Cano J, Campo J, Moreno LA, Bascones A. Osteogenic alveolar distraction: a review of the literature. Oral Surgery, Oral Medicine, Oral Pathology, Oral Radiology, and Endodontics. 2006; 101(1): 11–28.https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tripleo.2005.04.015
37. 37. Kessler P, Neukam FW, Wiltfang J. Effects of distraction forces and frequency of distraction on bony regeneration. The British Journal of Oral & Maxillofacial Surgery. 2005; 43(5): 392–398. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.bjoms.2004.10.015
38. 38. Kessler PA, Merten HA, Neukam FW, Wiltfang J. The effects of magnitude and frequency of distraction forces on tissue regeneration in distraction osteogenesis of the mandible. Plastic and Reconstructive Surgery. 2002; 109(1): 171–180. https://doi.org/10.1097/00006534-200201000-00027
39. 39. Nogueira MP, Paley D, Bhave A, Herbert A, Nocente C, Herzenberg JE. Nerve lesions associated with limb-lengthening. The Journal of Bone and Joint Surgery. American Volume. 2003;85(8): 1502–1510. https://doi.org/10.2106/00004623-200308000-00011
40. 40. Schmidt-Bleek K, Schell H, Schulz N, Hoff P, Perka C, Buttgereit F, Volk HD, Lienau J, Duda GN. Inflammatory phase of bone healing initiates the regenerative healing cascade. Cell and Tissue Research. 2012;347(3): 567–573. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00441-011-1205-7
41. 41. Gerstenfeld LC, Cho TJ, Kon T, Aizawa T, Tsay A, Fitch J, Barnes GL, Graves DT, Einhorn TA. Impaired fracture healing in the absence of TNF-alpha signaling: the role of TNF-alpha in endochondral cartilage resorption. Journal of Bone and Mineral Research : The Official Journal of the American Society for Bone and Mineral Research. 2003; 18(9): 1584–1592. https://doi.org/10.1359/jbmr.2003.18.9.1584
42. 42. Liu H, Li D, Zhang Y, Li M. Inflammation, mesenchymal stem cells and bone regeneration. Histochemistry and Cell Biology. 2018; 149(4): 393–404. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00418-018-1643-3
43. 43. Tsukasaki M, Takayanagi H. Osteoimmunology: evolving concepts in bone-immune interactions in health and disease. Nature Reviews. Immunology, 2019;19(10):626–642. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41577-019-0178-8
44. 44. Chen J, Hua J, Song W. Screen Key Genes Associated with Distraction-Induced Osteogenesis of Stem Cells Using Bioinformatics Methods. International Journal of Molecular Sciences. 2021; 22(12). https://doi.org/10.3390/ijms22126505
45. 45. Hunter CA, Jones SA. IL-6 as a keystone cytokine in health and disease. Nature Immunology. 2015; 16(5): 448–457. https://doi.org/10.1038/ni.3153
46. 46. Ando Y, Matsubara K, Ishikawa J, Fujio M, Shohara R, Hibi H, Ueda M, Yamamoto A. Stem cell-conditioned medium accelerates distraction osteogenesis through multiple regenerative mechanisms. Bone. 2014; 61: 82–90. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.bone.2013.12.029
47. 47. Cillo JE, Gassner R, Koepsel RR, Buckley MJ. Growth factor and cytokine gene expression in mechanically strained human osteoblast-like cells: implications for distraction osteogenesis. Oral Surgery, Oral Medicine, Oral Pathology, Oral Radiology, and Endodontics. 2000;90(2): 147–154. https://doi.org/10.1067/moe.2000.107531
48. 48. Lammens J, Liu Z, Aerssens J, Dequeker J, Fabry G. Distraction bone healing versus osteotomy healing: a comparative biochemical analysis. Journal of Bone and Mineral Research : The Official Journal of the American Society for Bone and Mineral Research, 1998;13(2): 279–286. https://doi.org/10.1359/jbmr.1998.13.2.279
49. 49. Mehrara BJ, Rowe NM, Steinbrech DS, Dudziak ME, Saadeh PB, McCarthy JG, Gittes GK, Longaker MT. Rat mandibular distraction osteogenesis: II. Molecular analysis of transforming growth factor beta-1 and osteocalcin gene expression. Plastic and Reconstructive Surgery. 1999; 103(2): 536–547. https://doi.org/10.1097/00006534-199902000-00026
50. 50. Xie MK, Hu CB, Zhou B, Wu GP. Effect of gene transfection timing on TGF-β1 expression in rabbit mandibular distraction gap. Genetics and Molecular Research : GMR. 2017;16(2). https://doi.org/10.4238/gmr16029330
51. 51. Kasaai B, Moffatt P, Al-Salmi L, Lauzier D, Lessard L, Hamdy RC. Spatial and temporal localization of WNT signaling proteins in a mouse model of distraction osteogenesis. The Journal of Histochemistry and Cytochemistry : Official Journal of the Histochemistry Society. 2012; 60(3): 219–228. https://doi.org/10.1369/0022155411432010
52. 52. Schupbach D, Comeau-Gauthier M, Harvey E, Merle G. Wnt modulation in bone healing. Bone. 2020; 138: 115491. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.bone.2020.115491
53. 53. Wang X, Zhu S, Jiang X, Li Y, Song D, Hu J. Systemic administration of lithium improves distracted bone regeneration in rats. Calcified Tissue International. 2015;96(6): 534–540. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00223-015-0004-7
54. 54. Hamdy RC, Rendon JS, Tabrizian M. Distraction osteogenesis and its challenges in bone regeneration. Bone regeneration. 2012; 8: 177-204.
55. 55. Birch JG, Samchukov ML. Use of the Ilizarov method to correct lower limb deformities in children and adolescents. The Journal of the American Academy of Orthopaedic Surgeons. 2004;12(3): 144–154. https://doi.org/10.5435/00124635-200405000-00002
56. 56. Murray J, Fitch R. Distraction Histiogenesis: Principles and Indications. The Journal of the American Academy of Orthopaedic Surgeons, 1996;4(6): 317–327. https://doi.org/10.5435/00124635-199611000-00004
57. 57. Cierny G, Zorn KE. Segmental tibial defects. Comparing conventional and Ilizarov methodologies. Clinical Orthopaedics and Related Research. 1994;301: 118–123.
58. 58. Snyder CC, Levine GA, Swanson HM, Browne EZ. Mandibular lengthening by gradual distraction. Preliminary report. Plastic and Reconstructive Surgery. 1973; 51(5): 506–508. https://doi.org/10.1097/00006534-197305000-00003
59. 59. Goldwaser BR, Papadaki ME, Kaban LB, Troulis MJ. Automated continuous mandibular distraction osteogenesis: review of the literature. Journal of Oral and Maxillofacial Surgery : Official Journal of the American Association of Oral and Maxillofacial Surgeons, 2012;70(2): 407–416. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.joms.2011.01.042
60. 60. Mofid MM, Manson PN, Robertson BC, Tufaro AP, Elias JJ, Vander Kolk CA. Craniofacial Distraction Osteogenesis: A Review of 3278 Cases. Plastic and Reconstructive Surgery. 2001; 108(5): 1103–1114. https://doi.org/10.1097/00006534-200110000-00001
61. 61. Sahoo NK, Issar Y, Thakral A. Mandibular Distraction Osteogenesis. The Journal of Craniofacial Surgery. 2019; 30(8): e743–e746. https://doi.org/10.1097/SCS.0000000000005753
62. 62. Chung YW, Tae KC. Dental stability and radiographic healing patterns after mandibular symphysis widening with distraction osteogenesis. The European Journal of Orthodontics. 2007; 29(3): 256-262.
63. 63. Witherow H, Dunaway D, Evans R, Nischal KK, Shipster C, Pereira V, Hearst D, White M, Jones BM, Hayward R. Functional outcomes in monobloc advancement by distraction using the rigid external distractor device. Plastic and Reconstructive Surgery. 2008; 121(4): 1311–1322. https://doi.org/10.1097/01.prs.0000305538.75347.52
64. 64. Shetye PR, Giannoutsos E, Grayson BH, McCarthy JG. Le Fort III distraction: part I. controlling position and vectors of the midface segment. Plast Reconstr Surg. 2009;124:871-878.
65. 65. Arnaud E, Di Rocco F. Faciocraniosynostosis: monobloc frontofacial osteotomy replacing the two-stage strategy? Childs Nerv Syst. 2012;28(9):1557-64. doi: 10.1007/s00381-012-1853-2. Epub 2012 Aug 8
66. 66. Konofaos P, Wallace RD. Distraction Osteogenesis in Craniofacial Surgery: Past, Present, and Future. J Craniofac Surg. 2021;32(Suppl 3):1221-1228. doi: 10.1097/SCS.0000000000007333. PMID: 33710057
67. 67. Andrade N, Gandhewar T, Kalra R. Development and evolution of distraction devices: Use of indigenous appliances for Distraction Osteogenesis-An overview. Annals of Maxillofacial Surgery. 2011; 1(1): 58
68. 68. Shetye PR, Boutro S, Grayson BH, McCarthy JG. Midterm Follow-Up of Midface Distraction for Syndromic Craniosynostosis: A Clinical and Cephalometric Study. Plastic and Reconstructive Surgery. 2007; 120(6): 1621–1632. https://doi.org/10.1097/01.prs.0000267422.37907.6f
69. 69. Fearon JA. Halo Distraction of the Le Fort III in Syndromic Craniosynostosis: A Long-Term Assessment. Plastic and Reconstructive Surgery. 2005; 115(6): 1524–1536. https://doi.org/10.1097/01.PRS.0000160271.08827.15
70. 70. Cohen SR, Holmes RE. (2001). Internal Le Fort III Distraction with Biodegradable Devices. Journal of Craniofacial Surgery. 2001;12(3):264–272. https://doi.org/10.1097/00001665-200105000-00013
71. 71. Al-Namnam NMN, Hariri F, Rahman ZAA. Distraction osteogenesis in the surgical management of syndromic craniosynostosis: a comprehensive review of published papers. In British Journal of Oral and Maxillofacial Surgery. 2018; 56(5):353–366. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.bjoms.2018.03.002
72. 72. Nout E, Wolvius EB, van Adrichem LNA, Ongkosuwito EM. Complications in maxillary distraction using the RED II device: a retrospective analysis of 21 patients. International journal of oral and maxillofacial surgery. 2006;35(10): 897-902.
73. 73. Cope JB, Samchukov ML, Cherkashin AM. Mandibular distraction osteogenesis: A historic perspective and future directions. American Journal of Orthodontics and Dentofacial Orthopedics. 1999; 115(4): 448–460.
74. 74. https://www.klsmartin.com/en/products/implants-cmf/distractors-and-fixators/
75. 75. https://www.resimpex.com.uy/admin/basic/web/contenidos/cajas/1484340795.pdf
76. 76. Cherkashin AM, Samchukov ML. Potential mistakes and complications. Craniofacial Distraction Osteogenesis. 2001; 583-594.
77. 77. Da Silva Freitas R, Tolazzi ARD, Alonso N, Cruz GAO, Busato L. Evaluation of Molar Teeth and Buds in Patients Submitted to Mandible Distraction: Long-Term Results. Plastic and Reconstructive Surgery. 2008; 121(4): 1335–1342. https://doi.org/10.1097/01.prs.0000304444.43168.fa
78. 78. Kende PP, Sarda AS, Desai H, Landge J, Nimma V, Varte V. Complications of distraction osteogenesis: Narrative review. In Oral Surgery. 2021;14(4):412–422. https://doi.org/10.1111/ors.12613
79. 79. Wijbenga JG, Verlinden CRA, Jansma J, Becking AG, Stegenga B. Long-lasting neurosensory disturbance following advancement of the retrognathic mandible: distraction osteogenesis versus bilateral sagittal split osteotomy. International Journal of Oral and Maxillofacial Surgery. 2009; 38(7): 719–725. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijom.2009.03.714
80. 80. Troulis MJ, Kaban LB. Complications of mandibular distraction osteogenesis. Oral and Maxillofacial Surgery Clinics of North America. 2003; 15(2): 251–264. https://doi.org/10.1016/S1042-3699(02)00101-2
81. 81. Uckan S, Veziroglu F, Arman A. Unexpected breakage of mandibular midline distraction device: case report. Oral Surgery, Oral Medicine, Oral Pathology, Oral Radiology, and Endodontology. 2006; 102(6): e21–e25. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tripleo.2006.05.025
82. 82. Hurmerinta K, Peltomäki T, Hukki J. Unexpected events during mandibular distraction osteogenesis. Scandinavian Journal of Plastic and Reconstructive Surgery and Hand Surgery. 2004; 38(4): 209–214. https://doi.org/10.1080/02844310410025312
83. 83. Nørholt SE, Jensen J, Schou S, Pedersen TK. Complications after mandibular distraction osteogenesis: a retrospective study of 131 patients. Oral Surgery, Oral Medicine, Oral Pathology, Oral Radiology, and Endodontology. 2011; 111(4): 420–427. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tripleo.2010.05.050
84. 84. Ahn JG, Figueroa AA, Braun S, Polley JW. Biomechanical considerations in distraction of the osteotomized dentomaxillary complex. American Journal of Orthodontics and Dentofacial Orthopedics. 1999; 116(3): 264–270. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0889-5406(99)70236-2
85. 85. van Strijen PJ, Breuning KH, Becking AG, Tuinzing DB. Stability after distraction osteogenesis to lengthen the mandible: results in 50 patients. Journal of Oral and Maxillofacial Surgery. 2004; 62(3): 304–307. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.joms.2003.02.003
86. 86. Schlund M, Touzet-Roumazeille S, Nicot R, Ferri J. Temporomandibular Joint Ankylosis Following Mandibular Distraction Osteogenesis: A Dreadful Complication. Journal of Craniofacial Surgery. 2020; 31(1): 222–225. https://doi.org/10.1097/SCS.0000000000005911.