ArticleAnnals of maxillofacial surgery
Comparison of Midface Advancement by External and Internal Craniofacial Distraction Osteogenesis.
Article in Annals of maxillofacial surgery. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 papers.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
3 citing papers in PubMed.
- Midface distraction osteogenesis using a modified external device and 3D virtual simulation: technical note.Child's nervous system : ChNS : official journal of the International Society for Pediatric Neurosurgery · 2020Article
- Efficacy and Versatility of Intraoral Monoplanar Distractors in the Correction of Extreme Mandibular Deformities and Severe Facial Asymmetries - A Retrospective Study.Annals of maxillofacial surgeryArticle
- Decannulation Dilemmas - Timing Tracheostomy Tube Removal in Children with Craniofacial Deformities - A Retrospective Study.Annals of maxillofacial surgeryArticle
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
2 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundDistraction osteogenesis (DO) is employed to address the midface abnormalities using either an external DO (EDO) or an internal DO (IDO) device. There are few studies that have reported EDO and IDO outcomes through cephalometric evaluation. The aim of this retrospective, record-based study is to compare the change in position of the midface resulting from distraction of noncomplicated cases of Le Fort III osteotomies with EDO as well as IDO and compare the groups using standard right facing lateral cephalometry. We hypothesized that there would be no difference between EDO and IDO in terms of displacement (of point of reference) as well as complications. MATERIALS AND
methodsRetrospective analyses of cases fulfilling inclusion and exclusion criteria were retrieved from archives. Using two sets of right-side cephalometry, preoperative and after consolidation (at the end of the treatment), the changes in Point A and Orbitale (O) as described by Lima
resultsSignificant midface advancement was achieved with the procedure. There were five cases of EDO and eight cases of IDO. The age at which patients were operated ranged from 9 to 18 years (mean: 13 years). The mean follow-up time was for 14 ± 8 months. There were eight females (3 - EDO and 5 - IDO) and five males in total. There was no complication in the entire study group. The difference in total bone length gain along the horizontal axis was as follows: 12.19 and 12.84 along the Point A for EDO and IDO and 3.89 and 4.65 along the Point O for EDO and IDO, respectively. The difference was not statistically significant ( DISCUSSION: The significance of the difference in EDO and IDO is discussed using the biomechanical principles and the results deliberated based on the existing literature.
conclusionThe positioning of the devices plays a significant role in deciding the outcome. Both the distractors have their distinct advantages and their applications have to be customized.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.