File Download

There are no files associated with this item.

  Links for fulltext
     (May Require Subscription)
Supplementary

Article: Cleft maxillary distraction versus orthognathic surgery-which one is more stable in 5 years?

TitleCleft maxillary distraction versus orthognathic surgery-which one is more stable in 5 years?
Authors
Chua, HDPHgg, MBCheung, LK
Issue Date2010
PublisherMosby, Inc. The Journal's web site is located at http://www.elsevier.com/locate/tripleo
Citation
Oral Surgery, Oral Medicine, Oral Pathology, Oral Radiology And Endodontology, 2010, v. 109 n. 6, p. 803-814 How to Cite?
DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.tripleo.2009.10.056
AbstractObjective: The objective of this study was to compare the long-term stability of distraction osteogenesis (DO) and conventional orthognathic surgery (CO) in patients with cleft lip and palate (CLP). Study design: CLP patients requiring maxillary advancement of 4 to 10 mm were randomized and assigned to either CO or DO. In the CO group, the maxilla was fully mobilized to the preplanned position and fixed using titanium miniplates. In the DO group, the maxilla was mobilized to a limited extent and distractors were fixed on each side of the maxilla. Serial lateral cephalographs were taken for the assessment of stability at different postoperative periods up to 5 years. Results: In the CO group, the maxilla relapsed backward and upward, whereas in the DO group, it advanced more forward and downward over 5 years. Conclusions: Distraction of the cleft maxilla can achieve better long-term skeletal stability in maintaining its advanced position than CO. © 2010 Mosby, Inc. All rights reserved.
Persistent Identifierhttp://hdl.handle.net/10722/124461
ISSN
1079-2104
2011 Impact Factor: 1.457
ISI Accession Number ID
WOS:000277405500007
Funding AgencyGrant Number
Hong Kong Research Grant CouncilHKU 7577/05M
Funding Information:

This clinical study was supported by the Competitive Earmarked Research Grant from the Hong Kong Research Grant Council (Reference code: HKU 7577/05M).

References
References in Scopus
Grants
Distraction versus orthognathic surgery - which one is better for cleft palate patients?

 

DC FieldValueLanguage
dc.contributor.authorChua, HDPen_HK
dc.contributor.authorHgg, MBen_HK
dc.contributor.authorCheung, LKen_HK
dc.date.accessioned2010-10-31T10:35:35Z-
dc.date.available2010-10-31T10:35:35Z-
dc.date.issued2010en_HK
dc.identifier.citationOral Surgery, Oral Medicine, Oral Pathology, Oral Radiology And Endodontology, 2010, v. 109 n. 6, p. 803-814en_HK
dc.identifier.issn1079-2104en_HK
dc.identifier.urihttp://hdl.handle.net/10722/124461-
dc.description.abstractObjective: The objective of this study was to compare the long-term stability of distraction osteogenesis (DO) and conventional orthognathic surgery (CO) in patients with cleft lip and palate (CLP). Study design: CLP patients requiring maxillary advancement of 4 to 10 mm were randomized and assigned to either CO or DO. In the CO group, the maxilla was fully mobilized to the preplanned position and fixed using titanium miniplates. In the DO group, the maxilla was mobilized to a limited extent and distractors were fixed on each side of the maxilla. Serial lateral cephalographs were taken for the assessment of stability at different postoperative periods up to 5 years. Results: In the CO group, the maxilla relapsed backward and upward, whereas in the DO group, it advanced more forward and downward over 5 years. Conclusions: Distraction of the cleft maxilla can achieve better long-term skeletal stability in maintaining its advanced position than CO. © 2010 Mosby, Inc. All rights reserved.en_HK
dc.languageengen_HK
dc.publisherMosby, Inc. The Journal's web site is located at http://www.elsevier.com/locate/tripleoen_HK
dc.relation.ispartofOral Surgery, Oral Medicine, Oral Pathology, Oral Radiology and Endodontologyen_HK
dc.subject.meshCephalometryen_HK
dc.subject.meshCleft Lip - surgeryen_HK
dc.subject.meshCleft Palate - surgeryen_HK
dc.subject.meshFemaleen_HK
dc.subject.meshFollow-Up Studiesen_HK
dc.subject.meshHumansen_HK
dc.subject.meshMaleen_HK
dc.subject.meshMalocclusion, Angle Class III - etiology - surgeryen_HK
dc.subject.meshMaxilla - abnormalities - surgeryen_HK
dc.subject.meshOrthognathic Surgical Procedures - methodsen_HK
dc.subject.meshOsteogenesis, Distraction - methodsen_HK
dc.subject.meshOsteotomy, Le Fort - methodsen_HK
dc.subject.meshRecurrence - prevention & controlen_HK
dc.subject.meshTreatment Outcomeen_HK
dc.subject.meshYoung Adulten_HK
dc.titleCleft maxillary distraction versus orthognathic surgery-which one is more stable in 5 years?en_HK
dc.typeArticleen_HK
dc.identifier.openurlhttp://library.hku.hk:4550/resserv?sid=HKU:IR&issn=1079-2104&volume=109&issue=6&spage=803&epage=814&date=2010&atitle=Cleft+maxillary+distraction+versus+orthognathic+surgery:+which+one+is+more+stable+in+5+years?-
dc.identifier.emailCheung, LK:lkcheung@hkucc.hku.hken_HK
dc.identifier.authorityCheung, LK=rp00013en_HK
dc.description.naturelink_to_subscribed_fulltext-
dc.identifier.doi10.1016/j.tripleo.2009.10.056en_HK
dc.identifier.pmid20299247-
dc.identifier.scopuseid_2-s2.0-77955292253en_HK
dc.identifier.hkuros172150en_HK
dc.relation.referenceshttp://www.scopus.com/mlt/select.url?eid=2-s2.0-77955292253&selection=ref&src=s&origin=recordpageen_HK
dc.identifier.volume109en_HK
dc.identifier.issue6en_HK
dc.identifier.spage803en_HK
dc.identifier.epage814en_HK
dc.identifier.eissn1528-395X-
dc.identifier.isiWOS:000277405500007-
dc.publisher.placeUnited Statesen_HK
dc.relation.projectDistraction versus orthognathic surgery - which one is better for cleft palate patients?-
dc.identifier.scopusauthoridChua, HDP=10838799100en_HK
dc.identifier.scopusauthoridHgg, MB=36238794400en_HK
dc.identifier.scopusauthoridCheung, LK=7102302747en_HK
dc.identifier.issnl1079-2104-

Export via OAI-PMH Interface in XML Formats

OR

Export to Other Non-XML Formats