Continuous Versus Discontinuous Distraction: Evaluation of Bone Regenerate Following Various Rhythms of Distraction
Journal of Oral and Maxillofacial Surgery , Volume 67 - Issue 4 p. 818- 826
Purpose: To investigate continuous distraction osteogenesis (DO) of the nasal bones in a rabbit model, and to compare data from this continuous DO study with data from a previously conducted discontinuous DO study. In addition, radiographic and ultrasonographic bone-fill scores were determined to investigate whether these scores provided reliable predictive value for the amount of new bone formation in the distraction area. Materials and Methods: Skeletally mature female New Zealand White rabbits were subjected to distraction of the nasal bones. A custom-made continuous distractor was used to perform automatic non-stop distraction. Bone data were obtained from radiography, ultrasonography, and microcomputed tomography. Data from this experiment were compared with data from a previous study on discontinuous distraction rhythms. Results: Ultrasonographic bone-fill scores correlated significantly to actual bone volume in contrast to radiographic bone-fill scores. Bone volume was significantly higher in the continuous DO group compared with the discontinuous DO groups. Conclusion: Continuous distraction resulted in accelerated osteogenesis compared with discontinuous distraction. Furthermore, bone-fill scores based on ultrasonography showed a significant correlation with actual bone volumes.
|animal experiment, animal model, animal tissue, article, bone radiography, bone regeneration, computer assisted tomography, controlled study, distraction osteogenesis, echography, female, intermethod comparison, nasal bone|
|Journal of Oral and Maxillofacial Surgery|
|Organisation||Erasmus MC: University Medical Center Rotterdam|
Djasim, U.M, Wolvius, E.B, Bos, J.A, van Neck, J.W, & van der Wal, K.G.H. (2009). Continuous Versus Discontinuous Distraction: Evaluation of Bone Regenerate Following Various Rhythms of Distraction. Journal of Oral and Maxillofacial Surgery, 67(4), 818–826. doi:10.1016/j.joms.2008.08.016