title: Effects of latency on the quality and quantity of bone produced by dentoalveolar distraction osteogenesis.
abstract: BACKGROUND
  Infrabony defects in the alveolus pose a substantial treatment complication for restorative dentists. The properties of regenerate bone produced by dentoalveolar distraction, with and without a latency period, remain largely unknown.
  
  
  METHODS
  Six male foxhound dogs between 1 and 2 years of age underwent osteotomies around the mandibular second premolar to create a dentoalveolar segment that was distracted (1 mm/day for 10 days) through a large periodontal defect created in the third premolar area. A split-mouth design was used, with 1 randomly selected side starting distraction immediately, and the other side starting distraction after a 5-day latency period. The nonlatency and latency sides had 7 and 6 weeks of consolidation, respectively. Microcomputed tomography scans (taken at 15 and 60 μm) were used to evaluate bone quality and quantity of the regenerate bone, as well as the maturational differences in the regenerate.
  
  
  RESULTS
  The transport segments were distracted 7 to 8 mm over 10 days. The majority (>75%) of the specimens showed complete or almost complete vertical and buccolingual bone fill. Except for trabecular separation, there were no significant differences between the latency and nonlatency sides in the quantity or quality of bone produced. Although relative bone volume tended to increase between the mesial and distal aspects of the regenerate, there were no significant differences in material properties in the regenerate. The control bone was denser and greater in quantity than the regenerate bone.
  
  
  CONCLUSIONS
  Except for slight differences in maturation, latency had little or no effect on the regenerate bone produced. Dentoalveolar distraction immediately after alveolar bone surgery appears to produce bone of adequate quantity and quality for dental implant restorations.
authors.affiliation: Orthodontic Department, Baylor College of Dentistry, Texas A&M Health Science Center, Dallas, TX 75246, USA.
authors.forename: Cody
authors.initials: C
authors.lastname: Moore
authors.forename: Phillip M
authors.initials: PM
authors.lastname: Campbell
authors.forename: Paul C
authors.initials: PC
authors.lastname: Dechow
authors.forename: Michael L
authors.initials: ML
authors.lastname: Ellis
authors.forename: Peter H
authors.initials: PH
authors.lastname: Buschang
mesh_terms: D016301:Alveolar Bone Loss / Q000601:surgery; D000818:Animals; D015519:Bone Density / Q000502:physiology*; D001861:Bone Regeneration / Q000502:physiology*; D002113:Calcification, Physiologic / Q000502:physiology; D004285:Dogs; D016267:External Fixators; D007091:Image Processing, Computer-Assisted / Q000379:methods; D021621:Imaging, Three-Dimensional / Q000379:methods; D008297:Male; D008334:Mandible / Q000000981:diagnostic imaging / Q000473:pathology / Q000601:surgery*; D010012:Osteogenesis / Q000502:physiology; D019857:Osteogenesis, Distraction / Q000295:instrumentation / Q000379:methods*; D011897:Random Allocation; D013997:Time Factors; D014945:Wound Healing / Q000502:physiology; D055114:X-Ray Microtomography / Q000379:methods