Sultan Qaboos University Med J, August 2013, Vol. 13, Iss. 3, pp. 454-459, Epub. 25th Jun 13 Submitted 2ND Nov 12 Revisions Req. 6TH Jan & 20TH Mar 13; Revisions Recd. 4TH Feb & 22ND Mar 13 Accepted 30TH Mar 13 1Department of Oral & Maxillofacial Surgery, Rishiraj College of Dental Sciences & Research Centre, Bhopal, India; 2KLE PK Hospital, KLE University, Belgaum, India; 3Department of Dentistry, All India Institute of Medical Sciences, Raipur, India *Corresponding Author e-mail: jshru23@gmail.com افرتاق التكون العظمي للفاصل األمامي يف مرضى نقص تنسج فلج الفك العلوي عرض خلمس حاالت �رسوثي راو، اأ�س كوترا�شيتي، جي لنجراج، بي بنتو، كي كيلو�شكار، �شيدراث جان، بيو�س �شوين، �شانتو�س راو امللخ�ص: جراحات تقومي الفك وافرتاق التكون العظمي تلعب دورا اأ�شا�شيا يف ت�شحيح نق�س تن�شج الفك العلوي ملر�شى فلج ال�شفة واحلنك. التقدمي االأمامي للفك العلوي بدون التداخل مع م�رسة ال�رساع البلعومي قد تكون مفيدة ملر�شى الفلج الذين دائما ما يعانون من عجز يف الكالم وتزاحم يف االأ�شنان. نعر�س هنا جمموعة خلم�شة مر�شى م�شابني بنق�س تن�شج الفك العلوي الذين خ�شعوا لعمليات افرتاق التكون باالجتاه املركب الوبر مفك مع ال�شني التثبيت لغر�س م�شنع افرتاق جهاز ا�شتخدام مت �شنة. ملدة متابعة مع االأمامي للفا�شل العظمي االأمامي واخللفي. مت تقييم حتليل االأن�شجة اللينة وال�شلبة وكذلك تقومي الكالم. بعد مرور �شنة على عملية اقرتان تكون العظم، مت ا�شتقرار تطابق االأ�شنان والرتاكب االأفقي االإيجابي وكذلك ت�شحيح تزاحم االأ�شنان بدون احلاجة لقلع االأ�شنان.مت حت�شني املظهر اجلانبي للوجه وال�شفة ومل يكن هناك اأي تدهور يف الكالم. مفتاح الكلمات: تكون العظم؛ افرتاق؛ جراحة تقومي الفك؛ فلج احلنك؛ قطع عظم الفك العلوي؛ تقرير حاالت؛ الهند. abstract: Orthognathic surgery and distraction osteogenesis play a prime role in the correction of maxillary hypoplasia in patients with cleft lip and palate (CLP). Advancement of the anterior maxilla alone without interfering with the velopharyngeal sphincter may be advantageous in cleft patients, who more commonly have speech deficits and dental crowding. We present a case series of anterior maxillary segmental distraction for maxillary hypoplasia in 5 CLP patients with a one-year follow-up. A custom-made tooth-borne distraction device with a hyrax screw positioned anteroposteriorly was used. The evaluation comprised of hard and soft tissue analysis and speech assessment. A stable occlusion with positive overjet and correction of dental-crowding without extraction was achieved at one year post-distraction. Facial profile and lip support improved. There was no deterioration in speech. Keywords: Distraction Osteogenesis; Orthognathic Surgeries; Cleft palate; Maxillary Osteotomy; Case Reports; India. Anterior Segmental Distraction Osteogenesis in the Hypoplastic Cleft Maxilla Report of five cases *Sruthi Rao (Janardhan),1 S. M. Kotrashetti,2 J. B. Lingaraj,2 P. X. Pinto,2 K. M. Keluskar,2 Siddharth Jain,2 Piyush Sone,2 Santhosh Rao3 case series Of all patients born with cleft lip and/or palate (CLP), 25–60% require maxillary advancement to correct the maxillary hypoplasia and improve aesthetic facial proportions.1 This can be accomplished with the help of orthognathic surgery or distraction osteogenesis, or both of these.2 The first successful clinical application of anterior maxillary segmental distraction (AMSD) using an intraoral tooth-borne distractor on dogs was reported in 1994 by Block and Brister and on humans in 2003 by Dolanmaz.3,4 Subsequent clinical research was carried out to determine the optimal protocols for AMSD.5–10 Here we present a series of five CLP cases treated with AMSD. Case Series A total of 5 patients with hypoplastic maxilla secondary to CLP and anterior crossbite with dental-crowding underwent AMSD at our centre. They were from Karnataka and Maharashtra, India, Anterior Segmental Distraction Osteogenesis in the Hypoplastic Cleft Maxilla Report of five cases 448 | SQU Medical Journal, August 2013, Volume 13, Issue 3 with a mean age of 16.8 years (range: 13–26 years; 4 male, 1 female). All patients had permanent dentition. None of them had previously undergone alveolar bone grafting. Three of the 5 patients had an anterior palatal fistula, one had a tongue flap and one had undergone fistula repair. Written informed consent was taken from the patients and ethical permission was obtained. The patients were followed-up for a period of one year post- distraction. The patients were prepared using extraoral and intraoral photographs, study casts and digital radiographs, including lateral cephalogram, orthopanthomograph, and intraoral periapical radiographs. In order to standardise the cephalograms, the patients’ heads were placed in a natural position with lips in repose and in centric occlusion. Lateral cephalograms were traced using Dolphin Imaging software, Version 11.0 (Dolphin Imaging and Management Solutions, Chatsworth, California, USA). A treatment simulation was performed in order to calculate the amount of advancement required in each case. Based on the root angulation assessed from preoperative radiographs and the size of the premaxilla, the osteotomy site was chosen as mesial to the first molar in 4 patients and between the two premolars in one patient. With the use of preoperative casts, the appliance was custom- made for each patient. A 12 mm hyrax expansion screw number 140–005 (Great Lakes Orthodontics Ltd, Tonawanda, New York, USA) was used in an anteroposterior direction, parallel to the sagittal plane. This was soldered to a unit with complete tooth coverage using acrylic in two patients, nickel chromium alloy in two patients, and titanium in one patient [Figure 1]. All of the patients underwent presurgical oral prophylaxis, restoration of dental caries and speech assessment by a speech pathologist. Divergence of the roots orthodontically at the osteotomy site was not required for any of the patients. Anterior maxillary osteotomy was carried out under general anaesthesia with nasoendotracheal intubation. A modified Cupar technique was used with a maxillary buccal vestibular incision from the lateral incisor to the first molar on either side, maintaining the central pedicle. The anterior maxillary segment was mobilised adequately and the prefabricated distractor device was then placed. It was tested to ensure the anterior segment was moving without resistance, and the appliance was then cemented intraoperatively using glass ionomer luting cement (GC FujiCEM™, GC Corporation, Tokyo, Japan). In two patients, the posterior component of the distractor had only a single tooth, and additional palatal screws were fixed to secure the appliance. Postoperatively, all the patients were kept on regular antibiotics, analgesics, and steroids. A latency phase of 2 to 4 days was given varying proportionately with the age of the patient. Distraction was carried out at a rate of 1 mm/ day with a twice daily rhythm. Two of the five patients experienced pain and showed mucosal inflammatory changes at a distraction rate of 1 mm/ day due to premature consolidation. When the rate was increased to 1.5 mm/day, these effects ceased. The activation was stopped once the required advancement predicted from the simulation was achieved. This amounted to a 10–12 mm distraction [Figure 1]. The distractor was sealed and retained through a consolidation period of 6–8 weeks. At the end of the consolidation phase, the distractor was removed and orthodontic treatment was started with banding and bonding carried out at the same sitting. Follow-up records were repeated at the end of activation phase, after the consolidation phase, and at three months, 6 months and one year after the distraction. Each speech analysis was rated according to the Universal Parameters Ratings of Speech Outcomes in Cleft Palate.11 Statistical analysis was carried out using a paired t–test. Figure 1: Distraction appliance in situ showing regenerate (patient 3). Sruthi Rao (Janardhan), S. M. Kotrashetti, J. B. Lingaraj, P. X. Pinto, K. M. Keluskar, Siddharth Jain, Piyush Sone and Santhosh Rao Case Series | 449 Results The interdental space created by distraction at the osteotomy site was utilised orthodontically to erupt partially-erupted lateral incisors in two patients and correct dental-crowding in the anterior maxilla in all patients, without the need for dental extractions. A functionally stable occlusion with alignment of teeth in the arch and a positive overjet was established at the end of one year [Figure 2]. No patient reported any clinical worsening of the anterior palatal fistula. Hard and soft tissue parameters were evaluated using the Cephalometrics for Orthognathic Surgery (COGS) analysis for hard and soft tissue, and Steiner analysis [Table 1].12–14 The preoperative and one- year follow-up values were taken into consideration. On studying the landmarks, there appeared to be an anticlockwise rotation of the maxillary plane together with an increase in the maxillary horizontal length. There was a concomitant opening of the mandibular plane angle. The mean value of the nasion-A point- pogonion angle (N-A-Pg) improved by 12.9º (P = 0.006). The nasion-A point linear measurement (NA) of the horizontal plane value improved by 8.56 mm (P = 0.008). The mandibular plane to horizontal plane angle increased by 2.62º (P = 0.001). The posterior nasal spine-anterior nasal spine linear measurement (PNS-ANS) distance increased by 9.82 mm (P = 0.00). The mean sella- nasion-A point angle (S-N-A) increased from 71.56º to 78.2º with an average increase of 6.64º (P = 0.03). The facial soft tissue contour showed an average decrease in concavity of 7.14º (P = 0.022), thereby establishing a straight to convex profile from the preexisting concave profile. Clinically, there was a significant improvement in the appearance of the patients [Figure 3]. The facial balance was restored and the previously retruded upper lips attained normal protrusion. The results of the speech analysis were not statistically significant. However, in two cases there was an improvement in speech understandability, and in two there was an improvement in speech acceptability [Table 2]. In one case, where a high anterior maxillary osteotomy was carried out as directed by the cephalometric tracing, extension prongs were adapted and soldered to the intraoral distractor. Two-hole titanium plates (Synthes, Inc., Sydney, Australia) were fixed bilaterally at the upper end of the osteotomised segment, in the infraorbital region. A pull-through wire was secured around the plate on either side, which exited the skin and was connected to the prongs. This enabled the bodily distraction of the anterior maxilla. The transcutaneous wires were removed along with the intraoral distractor at the end of the consolidation period. There was minimal scarring. In one patient, the appliance fractured during the consolidation period. Thereafter, an acrylic retention appliance was immediately fabricated and retained in situ until the end of consolidation. Discussion Various treatment modalities have been used and recommended by different authors for the correction of secondary deformities in CLP patients. The literature reveals that about 25% of patients with maxillary hypoplasia secondary to CLP do not respond to orthodontic-orthopaedic therapy alone and require further intervention.15 Orthognathic surgery consists of single stage corrective procedures accompanied by internal fixation. Distraction osteogenesis consists of slow regeneration of the bone following corticotomy or Figure 3: Profile pre-distraction and one year post- distraction (patient 5). Figure 2: Occlusion pre-distraction and one year post- distraction (patient 1). Anterior Segmental Distraction Osteogenesis in the Hypoplastic Cleft Maxilla Report of five cases 450 | SQU Medical Journal, August 2013, Volume 13, Issue 3 osteotomy after vector planning. In CLP patients, the relapse after orthognathic surgery is greater due to tense scar tissue from multiple previous surgeries. Larger advancements with better stability can be achieved with the help of distraction.15 Block et al. carried out a pilot study on the distraction of the anterior maxilla in dogs and described the use of a tooth-borne distractor.3,16 Sagittal advancement of the entire maxilla in CLP patients has the risk of shortening the soft palate and inducing velopharyngeal incompetence. The use of AMSD is recommended as an alternative Table 1: Cephalometric analysis for orthognathic surgery Preoperative Mean 1 year postoperative Mean Preoperative SD 1 year postoperative SD Paired differences Mean Paired differences SD Significance Hard tissue analysis Horizontal skeletal N-A-Pg (º) -14.36 -1.46 5.34 0.92 -12.90 5.29 0.006 N-A (HP) (mm) -9.06 -0.50 3.99 0.94 -8.56 3.95 0.008 N-B (HP) (mm) -1.72 -1.66 0.94 1.43 -0.06 0.60 0.834 N-Pg (HP) (mm) -0.38 -0.24 1.31 1.18 -0.14 0.27 0.311 vertical (skeletal, dental) N-ANS (perp HP) (mm) 40.60 40.50 5.27 5.28 0.10 0.85 0.806 ANS-Me (perp HP) (mm) 62.96 63.90 6.91 6.49 -0.94 0.63 0.03 PNS-N (perp HP) (mm) 40.00 39.80 5.46 5.25 0.20 0.23 0.13 Mandibular Plane-HP (º) 21.42 24.04 1.52 1.63 -2.62 0.76 0.001 Maxilla, mandible PNS-ANS (HP) (mm) 40.74 50.56 4.10 4.45 -9.82 1.05 0.00 Soft tissue analysis UL Protrusion (mm) 2.30 3.60 2.43 2.74 -1.30 1.85 0.19 LL Protrusion (mm) 6.68 5.70 2.43 2.86 0.98 1.29 0.17 Nasolabial Angle (º) 96.54 96.00 22.76 17.10 0.54 12.57 0.93 Steiner analysis selected parameters SNA (º) 71.56 78.20 4.45 4.70 -6.64 2.32 0.003 SNB (º) 75.62 78.74 3.83 4.23 -3.12 4.09 0.16 Soft Tissue Convexity (º) 144.1 136.96 3.11 3.04 7.14 4.36 0.02 SN-GoGn(º) 34.64 32.62 3.84 6.04 2.02 5.96 0.49 SD = standard deviation; N-A-Pg = nasion-A point-pogonion angle; HP = horizontal plane; N-A = nasion-A point; N-B = nasion-B point; N-Pg = nasion-pogonion; N-ANS = nasion-perpendicular-anterior nasal spine; ANS-Me = anterior nasal spine-menton; PNS-N = posterior nasal spine-nasion perpendicualr; UL = upper lip; LL = lower lip; S-N-A = sella-nasion-A point angle; S-N-B = sella-nasion-B point angle; SN-GoGn = angle between sella-nasion and gonion-gnathion. Sruthi Rao (Janardhan), S. M. Kotrashetti, J. B. Lingaraj, P. X. Pinto, K. M. Keluskar, Siddharth Jain, Piyush Sone and Santhosh Rao Case Series | 451 method to conventional Le Fort I osteotomy and rigid external distraction systems for CLP patients with severe velopharyngeal incompetence as it does not affect the velopharyngeal sphincter.7 Patients who have a class I molar relationship, negative or zero overjet, or impacted or malaligned anterior teeth are ideal candidates.5,17,18 In these patients, the treatment objective should be to create space for the eruption of impacted anterior teeth or for their alignment by increasing the arch length while maintaining the class I molar relationship. An anterior crossbite and a concave profile can also be addressed using this technique. External and internal distractors like the Dynaform system, modified hyrax appliance and the hybrid distractors have been described in relation to an anterior maxillary distraction.8,10,19 The distractor used in this case series had the advantage of easy fabrication, minimal expense and good patient tolerance. The modified Cupar technique used for these cases was intended to prevent vascular compromise to the previously operated-upon cleft maxillae.20 The rate of distraction was planned according to age and executed based on the resistance of the maxilla to easy distraction, which would be related to the consolidation changes taking place.21 In the consolidation phase, the patients had minimal discomfort and psychological trauma in retention of the intraoral tooth borne distractor, in contrast to the conspicuous extraoral distractors. Similar to previous studies on soft tissue changes in maxillary distraction, in the current case series there appeared to be a clinically significant improvement in facial balance, with positive soft tissue changes produced by increasing the nasal projection, normalising the nasolabial angle and making the upper lip more prominent.15,17,22,23 The results of this case series were in accordance with the study by Ho et al. who reported stable occlusion results after 3 years’ follow-up.17 There has been no previous study on speech outcomes after AMSD. In this case series, there was no worsening of speech in any patient, possibly attributable to there being no change in the velopharyngeal sphincter. The speech analysis revealed no clinically or statistically significant changes in speech. Improvement in speech understandability and acceptability may be attributed to the improved dental alignment and incisor relationship. Conclusion Anterior segmental distraction osteogenesis of the hypoplastic cleft maxilla improves facial balance and aesthetics, and achieves stable occlusion while correcting dental-crowding without any detrimental effect on speech. References 1. Polley JW, Figueroa AA. Management of severe cleft maxillary deficiency with distraction osteogenesis: Procedure and results. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop 1999; 115:1–12. 2. Precious DS. Treatment of retruded maxilla in cleft lip and palate – orthognathic surgery versus distraction osteogenesis: The case for orthognathic surgery. J Oral Maxillofac Surg 2007; 65:758–61. 3. Block MS, Brister GD. Use of distraction osteogenesis for maxillary advancement: Preliminary results. J Oral Maxillofac Surg 1994; 52:262–6. 4. Dolanmaz D, Karaman AI, Ozyesil AG. Maxillary anterior segmental advancement by using distraction osteogenesis: A case report. Angle Orthod 2003; 73:201–5. 5. Wang XX, Wang X, Li ZL, Yi B, Liang C, Jia YL, et al. Anterior maxillary segmental distraction for correction of maxillary hypoplasia and dental Table 2: Speech analysis Pre- operative Mean 1 year post- operative Mean Pre- operative SD 1 year post- operative SD Paired differences Mean Paired differences SD Significance Hypernasality 1.4 0.8 1.1402 0.4472 0.6 0.8944 .208 Speech understandability 1.6 1.2 0.8944 0.8367 0.4 0.5477 .178 Speech acceptability 1.8 1.2 1.0954 0.8367 0.6 0.5477 .07 SD = standard deviation. Anterior Segmental Distraction Osteogenesis in the Hypoplastic Cleft Maxilla Report of five cases 452 | SQU Medical Journal, August 2013, Volume 13, Issue 3 crowding in cleft palate patients: a preliminary report. Int J Oral Maxillofac Surg 2009; 38:1237–43. 6. Alkan A, Bas B, Ozer M, Bayram M, Yuzbasioglu E. Maxillary anterior segmental advancement of hypoplastic maxilla in cleft patients by distraction osteogenesis: Report of 2 cases. J Oral Maxillofac Surg 2008; 66:126–32. 7. Bengi O, Karacay S, Akin E, Okqu KM, Olmez H, Mermut S. Cephalometric evaluation of patients treated by maxillary anterior segmental distraction: A preliminary report. J Craniomaxillofac Surg 2007; 35:302–10. 8. Gualini C. Advancement of maxillary anterior segment by distraction osteogenesis (DO): A case report. Prog Orthod 2007; 8:54–61. 9. Gunaseelan R, Cheung LK, Krishnaswamy R, Veerabahu M. Anterior maxillary distraction by tooth-borne palatal distractor. J Oral Maxillofac Surg 2007; 65:1044–9. 10. Karakasis D, Hadjipetrous L. Advancement of the anterior maxilla by distraction (case report). J Craniomaxillofac Surg 2004; 32:150–4. 11. Henningsson G, Kuehn DP, Sell D, Sweeney T, Judith ET, Whitehill TL. Universal parameters for reporting speech outcomes in individuals with cleft palate. Cleft Palate Craniofac J 2008; 45:1–17. 12. Burstone CJ, James RB, Legan H, Murphy GA, Norton LA. Cephalometrics for orthognathic surgery. J Oral Surg 1978; 36:269–77. 13. Legan HL, Burstone CJ. Soft tissue cephalometric analysis for orthognathic surgery. J Oral Surg 1980; 38:744–51. 14. Steiner CC. Cephalometrics in clinical practice. Angle Orthod 1959; 1:8–29. 15. Rachmiel A. Treatment of maxillary cleft palate: Distraction osteogenesis versus orthognathic surgery - Part One: Maxillary distraction. J Oral Maxillofac Surg 2007; 65:753–7. 16. Block MS, Cervini D, Chang A, Gottsegen GB. Anterior maxillary advancement using tooth- supported distraction osteogenesis. J Oral Maxillofac Surg 1995; 53:561–5. 17. Ho CT, Heller F, Lo LJ, Liou EJW, Huang CS, Chen YR. Distraction osteogenesis in adolescents with maxillary arch deficiency and dental crowding: A 3-year follow-up. Plast Reconstr Surg 2006; 117:2337–46. 18. Okcu KM, Sencimen M, Karacay S, Bengi AO, Ors F, Dogan N, et al. Anterior segmental distraction of the hypoplastic maxilla by a tooth borne device: A study on the movement of the segment. Int J Oral Maxillofac Surg 2009; 38:817–22. 19. Aikawa T, Haraguchi S, Tanaka S, Uematsu S, Ishibashi M, Kogo M, et al. Rotational movement of the anterior maxillary segment by hybrid distractor in patients with cleft lip and palate. Oral Surg Oral Med Oral Pathol Oral Radiol Endod 2010; 110:292– 300. 20. Bell WH. Correction of maxillary excess by anterior maxillary osteotomy. A review of three basic procedures. Oral Surg Oral Med Oral Pathol 1977; 43:323–32. 21. Van Sickels JE. Distraction osteogenesis: Advancements in the last 10 years. Oral Maxillofac Surg Clin North Am 2007; 19:565–74. 22. Molina F, Ortiz Monasterio F, de la Paz Aguilar M, Barrera J. Maxillary distraction: Aesthetic and functional benefits in cleft lip-palate and prognathic patients during mixed dentition. Plast Reconstr Surg 1998; 101:951–63. 23. Wen-Ching Ko E, Figueroa AA, Polley JW. Soft tissue profile changes after maxillary advancement with distraction osteogenesis by use of a rigid external distraction device: A 1-year follow-up. J Oral Maxillofac Surg 2000; 58:959–69.