Bone Density of the Condyle of Children with Craniofacial Microsomia and its Correlation with Condylar Resorption After Mandible Distraction Osteogenesis
Restricted accessResearch articleFirst published online August, 2024
Bone Density of the Condyle of Children with Craniofacial Microsomia and its Correlation with Condylar Resorption After Mandible Distraction Osteogenesis
To investigate condylar bone density (BD) in children with craniofacial microsomia (CFM) and identify factors that contribute to early stage condylar resorption (CR) after mandibular distraction osteogenesis (MDO).
Design
Retrospective study.
Setting
Craniofacial department of a plastic surgery hospital.
Patients
Fifty-one children with CFM classified as Pruzansky IIa based on complete pre-(T0) and post-MDO (T1) computed tomography (CT) data.
Intervention and Main outcome measurements
Mimic 21.0 (Materialise Inc., Belgium) was used to measure bilateral BD and condylar height (CH) and volume (CV) of affected side. Children were split into groups based on either affected side BD or the distraction length (DL,25 mm as cutoff) .Bilateral BD was compared using a paired t-test in each group. The CH and CV of affected side at T0 and T1 were compared. The relative values of the CH and CV (CH ratio) and the volume (CV ratio) of the affected side were compared across the groups.
Results
The BD was lower on affected side than on unaffected side. Regarding BD, CH and CV decreased after MDO in group I, while the CH ratio and CV ratio of group I was lower than that of groups II and III. Regarding DL, the CV ratio was lower in Group L than Group S.
Conclusions
The condylar bone quality on affected side is compromised in type IIa CFM. A low BD in combination with a larger distraction distance may increase the risk of CR; therefore, MDO in patients with such characteristics should be postponed.
ChenYFVinayahalingamSBergéSLiaoYFMaalTXiT. Three-Dimensional analysis of the condylar hypoplasia and facial asymmetry in craniofacial microsomia using cone-beam computed tomography. J Oral Maxillofac Surg. 2021;79(8):1750.e1‐1750.e10. doi:10.1016/j.joms.2021.03.015
2.
ElNaghyRBousRChinoyAKumarAValiathanM. A qualitative assessment of bone mineral density in individuals with hemifacial microsomia: A cone-beam computed tomography study. Cleft Palate Craniofac J. 2021;58(9):1086‐1093. doi:10.1177/1055665620975638
3.
HirschfelderUPiechotESchulteMLeherA. Abnormalities of the TMJ and the musculature in the oculo-auriculo-vertebral spectrum (OAV). A CT study. J Orofac Orthop. 2004;65(3):204‐216. doi:10.1007/s00056-004-0331-1
4.
KimKJParkJHBayRCLeeMYChangNYChaeJM. Mandibular condyle bone density in adolescents with varying skeletal patterns evaluated using cone-beam computed tomography: A potential predictive tool. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop. 2018;154(3):382‐389. doi:10.1016/j.ajodo.2017.12.013
5.
ChangMSChoiJHYangIHAnJSHeoMSAhnSJ. Association between condylar bone density and disk displacement in the temporomandibular joint. J Clin Densitom. 2022;25(2):215‐222. doi:10.1016/j.jocd.2021.07.003
6.
HongSWKangJH. Bone mineral density, bone microstructure, and bone turnover markers in females with temporomandibular joint osteoarthritis. Clin Oral Investig. 2021;25(11):6435‐6448. doi:10.1007/s00784-021-03946-0
7.
ShiJLeeSPanHC, et al.Association of condylar bone quality with TMJ osteoarthritis. J Dent Res. 2017;96(8):888‐894. doi:10.1177/0022034517707515
8.
MühlbergerGSvejdaMLottersbergerCEmshoffRPutzRKuhnV. Mineralization density and apparent density in mandibular condyle bone. Oral Surg Oral Med Oral Pathol Oral Radiol Endod. 2009;107(4):573‐579. doi:10.1016/j.tripleo.2008.11.006
9.
McCarthyJGStelnickiEJMehraraBJLongakerMT. Distraction osteogenesis of the craniofacial skeleton. Plast Reconstr Surg. 2001;107(7):1812‐1827. doi:10.1097/00006534-200106000-00029
10.
XiaLZhangYAnJChenSHeY. Evaluating the remodeling of condyles reconstructed by transport distraction osteogenesis in the treatment of temporomandibular joint ankylosis. J Craniomaxillofac Surg. 2020;48(5):494‐500. doi:10.1016/j.jcms.2020.03.004
11.
van StrijenPJBreuningKHBeckingAGTuinzingDB. Condylar resorption following distraction osteogenesis: A case report. J Oral Maxillofac Surg. 2001;59(9):1104–7; discussion 1107-8. doi:10.1053/joms.2001.25860
12.
AzumiYSugawaraJTakahashiIMitaniHNagasakaHKawamuraH. Positional and morphologic changes of the mandibular condyle after mandibular distraction osteogenesis in skeletal class II patients. World J Orthod. Spring2004;5(1):32‐39.
13.
FanKAndrewsBTLiaoEAllamKRaposo AmaralCABradleyJP. Protection of the temporomandibular joint during syndromic neonatal mandibular distraction using condylar unloading. Plast Reconstr Surg.2012;129(5):1151‐1161. doi:10.1097/PRS.0b013e31824a2d00
14.
van StrijenPJBreuningKHBeckingAGTuinzingDB. Stability after distraction osteogenesis to lengthen the mandible: Results in 50 patients. J Oral Maxillofac Surg. 2004;62(3):304‐307. doi:10.1016/j.joms.2003.02.003
15.
KitaiNMurakamiSTakashimaMFurukawaSKreiborgSTakadaK. Evaluation of temporomandibular joint in patients with hemifacial microsomia. Cleft Palate Craniofac J.2004;41(2):157‐162. doi:10.1597/02-108
16.
TakashimaMKitaiNMurakamiSFurukawaSKreiborgSTakadaK. Volume and shape of masticatory muscles in patients with hemifacial microsomia. Cleft Palate Craniofac J. 2003;40(1):6‐12. doi:10.1597/1545-1569_2003_040_0006_vasomm_2.0.co_2
17.
XiTvan LuijnRBaanF, et al.Three-dimensional analysis of condylar remodeling and skeletal relapse following bimaxillary surgery: A 2-year follow-up study. J Craniomaxillofac Surg. 2017;45(8):1311‐1318. doi:10.1016/j.jcms.2017.06.006
18.
VerlindenCRvan de VijfeijkenSEJansmaEPBeckingAGSwennenGR. Complications of mandibular distraction osteogenesis for congenital deformities: A systematic review of the literature and proposal of a new classification for complications. Int J Oral Maxillofac Surg. 2015;44(1):37‐43. doi:10.1016/j.ijom.2014.07.009
19.
WenLYanWYueZBoDXiaoYChun-LingW. Study of condylar asymmetry in angle class III malocclusion with mandibular deviation. J Craniofac Surg. 2015;26(3):e264‐e268. doi:10.1097/scs.0000000000001469
20.
SilvaIMFreitasDQAmbrosanoGMBóscoloFNAlmeidaSM. Bone density: Comparative evaluation of hounsfield units in multislice and cone-beam computed tomography. Braz Oral Res. 2012;26(6):550‐556. doi:10.1590/s1806-83242012000600011
21.
CisnerosGJKabanLB. Computerized skeletal scintigraphy for assessment of mandibular asymmetry. J Oral Maxillofac Surg. 1984;42(8):513‐520. doi:10.1016/0278-2391(84)90010-7
22.
PatulloIMTakayamaLPatulloRFJorgettiVPereiraRM. Influence of ovariectomy and masticatory hypofunction on mandibular bone remodeling. Oral Dis. 2009;15(8):580‐586. doi:10.1111/j.1601-0825.2009.01599.x
OngkosuwitoEMde GijtPWattelECarelsCEKuijpers-JagtmanAM. Dental development in hemifacial microsomia. J Dent Res. 2010;89(12):1368‐1372. doi:10.1177/0022034510378425
25.
AggarwalHSinghRDKumarM, et al.Three-dimensional quantitative analysis of the bone density of mandibular condyle in dentulous and edentulous jaws: An in vivo study. J Clin Densitom. 2015;18(1):50‐53. doi:10.1016/j.jocd.2014.09.002
26.
NagyKKuijpers-JagtmanAMMommaertsMY. No evidence for long-term effectiveness of early osteodistraction in hemifacial microsomia. Plast Reconstr Surg. 2009;124(6):2061‐2071. doi:10.1097/PRS.0b013e3181bcf2a4
27.
WangXFengSTangX, et al.Incidents of mandibular distraction osteogenesis for hemifacial microsomia. Plast Reconstr Surg. 2018;142(4):1002‐1008. doi:10.1097/prs.0000000000004812
28.
BaekSHKimS. The determinants of successful distraction osteogenesis of the mandible in hemifacial microsomia from longitudinal results. J Craniofac Surg. 2005;16(4):549‐558. doi:10.1097/01.scs.0000159939.85745.a8
29.
GürsoySHukkiJHurmerintaK. Five year follow-up of mandibular distraction osteogenesis on the dentofacial structures of syndromic children. Orthod Craniofac Res. 2008;11(1):57‐64. doi:10.1111/j.1601-6343.2008.00415.x
30.
EnlowDHMoyersRE. Growth and architecture of the face. J Am Dent Assoc. 1971;82(4):763‐774. doi:10.14219/jada.archive.1971.0144
31.
SudaDOhazamaAMaedaTKobayashiT. The effect of bone mass and architecture on mandibular condyle after mandibular distraction. Oral Surg Oral Med Oral Pathol Oral Radiol. 2017;124(4):339‐347. doi:10.1016/j.oooo.2017.05.472
WeichmanKEJacobsJPatelP, et al.Early distraction for mild to moderate unilateral craniofacial microsomia: Long-term follow-up, outcomes, and recommendations. Plast Reconstr Surg. 2017;139(4):941e‐953e. doi:10.1097/prs.0000000000003223
34.
PadwaBLKaiserMOKabanLB. Occlusal cant in the frontal plane as a reflection of facial asymmetry. J Oral Maxillofac Surg. 1997;55(8):811–6; discussion 817. doi:10.1016/s0278-2391(97)90338-4.
35.
WangPZhangZWangYLiXYeBLiJ. The accuracy of virtual-surgical-planning-assisted treatment of hemifacial microsomia in adult patients: Distraction osteogenesis vs. Orthognathic surgery. Int J Oral Maxillofac Surg. 2019;48(3):341‐346. doi:10.1016/j.ijom.2018.07.026
36.
van LuijnRBaanFShaheenE, et al.Three-dimensional analysis of condylar remodeling and skeletal relapse following LeFort-I osteotomy: A one-year follow-up bicenter study. J Craniomaxillofac Surg. 2022;50(1):40‐45. doi:10.1016/j.jcms.2021.09.021
37.
HerfordASHoffmanRDemirdjiS, et al.A comparison of synovial fluid pressure after immediate versus gradual mandibular advancement in the miniature pig. J Oral Maxillofac Surg. 2005;63(6):775‐785. doi:10.1016/j.joms.2005.02.013
38.
FattahAYCaroCKhechoyanDYTompsonBForrestCRPhillipsJH. Cephalometric outcomes of orthognathic surgery in hemifacial microsomia. J Craniofac Surg. 2014;25(5):1734‐1739. doi:10.1097/scs.0000435808.91512.58
39.
DeMitchell-RodriguezEMMittermillerPAAvinoamSP, et al.Clinical Outcomes in Orthognathic Surgery for Craniofacial Microsomia Following Mandibular Distraction Using CBCT Analysis: A Retrospective Study. Cleft Palate Craniofac J. 2022;10556656221131855. doi:10.1177/10556656221131855
Supplementary Material
Please find the following supplemental material available below.
For Open Access articles published under a Creative Commons License, all supplemental material carries the same license as the article it is associated with.
For non-Open Access articles published, all supplemental material carries a non-exclusive license, and permission requests for re-use of supplemental material or any part of supplemental material shall be sent directly to the copyright owner as specified in the copyright notice associated with the article.
