• Users Online: 130
  • Print this page
  • Email this page
REVIEW ARTICLE
Year : 2021  |  Volume : 8  |  Issue : 1  |  Page : 49-55

Comparison of conventional Le-fort I advancement, anterior maxillary segmental distraction, and distraction osteogenesis of maxilla for surgical management of cleft maxillary hypoplasia: A systematic review


1 Department of Maxillofacial Surgery, Saifee Hospital, Mumbai, Maharashtra, India
2 Department of Plastic and Reconstructive Surgery, Saifee Hospital, Mumbai, Maharashtra, India

Correspondence Address:
Dr. Taher Abbas Mistry
Saifee Hospital, Mumbai, Maharashtra
India
Login to access the Email id

Source of Support: None, Conflict of Interest: None


DOI: 10.4103/jclpca.jclpca_28_20

Rights and Permissions

This systematic review compares conventional Le-fort I advancement (CLO), anterior maxillary segmental distraction (AMD) and distraction osteogenesis of maxilla (DOM) for the treatment of cleft maxillary hypoplasia in terms of the amount of maxillary advancement achievable, relapse, residual velopharyngeal incompetence and soft tissue changes. All patients with maxillary hypoplasia secondary to cleft palate repair were taken into consideration irrespective of their gender, age and ethnic background. Literature research was done in databases PubMed, Ovid and Google scholar beta. From the original 429 articles identified, 17 articles were finally included, which passed the critical appraisal checklist and met the inclusion criteria. The mean advancement ranged from 6.59 mm to 16.5 mm for DOM, 6–14.28 mm for AMD and 5.17–7.2 mm for CLO. Relapse was 8.24%–45% for DOM, 4.6%–7% for AMD and 21.63%–63% for CLO. Velopharyngeal insufficiency increased significantly following Le-fort I advancement, while there was no significant change after anterior maxillary distraction and DOM. The ratio of soft tissue to hard tissue changes was greatest with AMD, followed by DOM and then CLO. Distraction osteogenesis of the maxilla and AMD are plausible treatment options for cleft maxillary advancement. Due to less stability and restricted amount of possible advancement, Le-fort I osteotomy should be reserved for minor skeletal discrepancies in cleft patients.


[FULL TEXT] [PDF]*
Print this article     Email this article
 Next article
 Previous article
 Table of Contents

 Similar in PUBMED
   Search Pubmed for
   Search in Google Scholar for
 Related articles
 Citation Manager
 Access Statistics
 Reader Comments
 Email Alert *
 Add to My List *
 * Requires registration (Free)
 

 Article Access Statistics
    Viewed302    
    Printed12    
    Emailed0    
    PDF Downloaded19    
    Comments [Add]    

Recommend this journal