Maxillary distraction osteogenesis versus orthognathic surgery for cleft lip and palate patients.
BACKGROUND
Cleft lip and palate is one of the most common birth defects and can cause difficulties with feeding, speech and hearing, as well as psychosocial problems. Treatment of orofacial clefts is prolonged; it typically commences after birth and lasts until the child reaches adulthood or even into adulthood. Residual deformities, functional disturbances, or both, are frequently seen in adults with a repaired cleft. Conventional orthognathic surgery, such as Le Fort I osteotomy, is often performed for the correction of maxillary hypoplasia. An alternative intervention is distraction osteogenesis, which achieves bone lengthening by gradual mechanical distraction.


OBJECTIVE
To provide evidence regarding the effects and long-term results of maxillary distraction osteogenesis compared to orthognathic surgery for the treatment of hypoplastic maxilla in people with cleft lip and palate.


METHODS
We searched the following electronic databases: Cochrane Oral Health's Trials Register (to 16 February 2016), the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL) (the Cochrane Library, 2016, Issue 1), MEDLINE Ovid (1946 to 16 February 2016), Embase Ovid (1980 to 16 February 2016), LILACS BIREME (1982 to 16 February 2016), the US National Institutes of Health Ongoing Trials Register (ClinicalTrials.gov) (to 16 February 2016), and the World Health Organization (WHO) International Clinical Trials Registry Platform (to 16 February 2016). There were no restrictions regarding language or date of publication in the electronic searches. We performed handsearching of six speciality journals and we checked the reference lists of all trials identified for further studies.


METHODS
We included randomised controlled trials (RCTs) comparing maxillary distraction osteogenesis to conventional Le Fort I osteotomy for the correction of cleft lip and palate maxillary hypoplasia in non-syndromic cleft patients aged 15 years or older.


METHODS
Two review authors assessed studies for eligibility. Two review authors independently extracted data and assessed the risk of bias in the included studies. We contacted trial authors for clarification or missing information whenever possible. All standard methodological procedures expected by Cochrane were used.


RESULTS
We found six publications involving a total of 47 participants requiring maxillary advancement of 4 mm to 10 mm. All of them related to a single trial performed between 2002 and 2008 at the University of Hong Kong, but not all of the publications reported outcomes from all 47 participants. The study compared maxillary distraction osteogenesis with orthognathic surgery, and included participants from 13 to 45 years of age.Results and conclusions should be interpreted with caution given the fact that this was a single trial at high risk of bias, with a small sample size.The main outcomes assessed were hard and soft tissue changes, skeletal relapse, effects on speech and velopharyngeal function, psychological status, and clinical morbidities.Both interventions produced notable hard and soft tissue improvements. Nevertheless, the distraction group demonstrated a greater maxillary advancement, evaluated as the advancement of Subspinale A-point: a mean difference of 4.40 mm (95% CI 0.24 to 8.56) was recorded two years postoperatively.Horizontal relapse of the maxilla was significantly less in the distraction osteogenesis group five years after surgery. A total forward movement of A-point of 2.27 mm was noted for the distraction group, whereas a backward movement of 2.53 mm was recorded for the osteotomy group (mean difference 4.8 mm, 95% CI 0.41 to 9.19).No statistically significant differences could be detected between the groups in speech outcomes, when evaluated through resonance (hypernasality) at 17 months postoperatively (RR 0.11, 95% CI 0.01 to 1.85) and nasal emissions at 17 months postoperatively (RR 3.00, 95% CI 0.14 to 66.53), or in velopharyngeal function at the same time point (RR 1.28, 95% CI 0.65 to 2.52).Maxillary distraction initially lowered social self-esteem at least until the distractors were removed, at three months postoperatively, compared to the osteotomy group, but this improved over time and the distraction group had higher satisfaction with life in the long term (two years after surgery) (MD 2.95, 95% CI 014 to 5.76).Adverse effects, in terms of clinical morbidities, included mainly occlusal relapse and mucosal infection, with the frequency being similar between groups (3/15 participants in the distraction osteogenesis group and 3/14 participants in the osteotomy group). There was no severe harm to any participant.


CONCLUSIONS
This review found only one small randomised controlled trial concerning the effectiveness of distraction osteogenesis compared to conventional orthognathic surgery. The available evidence is of very low quality, which indicates that further research is likely to change the estimate of the effect. Based on measured outcomes, distraction osteogenesis may produce more satisfactory results; however, further prospective research comprising assessment of a larger sample size with participants with different facial characteristics is required to confirm possible true differences between interventions.
Department of Orthodontics and Dentofacial Orthopedics, School of Dental Medicine, University of Bern, Freiburgstrasse 7, Bern, Switzerland, 3010.
Dimitrios
D
Kloukos
Piotr
P
Fudalej
Patrick
P
Sequeira-Byron
Christos
C
Katsaros
J Pediatr. 1999 Mar;134(3):298-303
10064665
Teratology. 1999 Nov;60(5):253-7
10525201
Plast Reconstr Surg. 2000 Feb;105(2):485-91
10697150
Plast Reconstr Surg. 2001 Jun;107(7):1812-27
11391207
J Craniomaxillofac Surg. 2001 Jun;29(3):131-40; discussion 141-2
11465251
Cleft Palate Craniofac J. 2002 Nov;39(6):641-5
12401110
Oral Surg Oral Med Oral Pathol Oral Radiol Endod. 2002 Dec;94(6):673-7
12464889
J Craniofac Surg. 2004 Jul;15(4):662-9
15213549
Oral Surg Oral Med Oral Pathol Oral Radiol Endod. 2004 Nov;98(5):528-32
15529123
Cleft Palate Craniofac J. 2005 Jan;42(1):78-82
15643920
Cleft Palate Craniofac J. 2005 Sep;42(5):459-66
16149825
Plast Reconstr Surg. 2006 Sep 15;118(4):996-1008; discussion 1009
16980862
Plast Reconstr Surg. 2006 Dec;118(7):1585-97
17102732
J Oral Maxillofac Surg. 2006 Dec;64(12):1743-50
17113440
Cleft Palate Craniofac J. 2007 Jan;44(1):23-32
17214524
Plast Reconstr Surg. 1992 Jan;89(1):1-8; discussion 9-10
1727238
J Oral Maxillofac Surg. 2007 Apr;65(4):753-7
17368374
Am J Epidemiol. 2007 Oct 1;166(7):775-85
17609516
Orthod Craniofac Res. 2007 Aug;10(3):114-20
17651127
J Craniofac Surg. 2007 Sep;18(5):1209-15
17912117
Int J Oral Maxillofac Surg. 2008 Feb;37(2):123-30
17997279
J Craniofac Surg. 2008 Sep;19(5):1199-214
18812842
J Craniomaxillofac Surg. 2010 Mar;38(2):83-9
19447635
Lancet. 2009 Sep 26;374(9695):1097-104
19782875
Lancet. 2009 Sep 26;374(9695):1105-12
19782876
Oral Surg Oral Med Oral Pathol Oral Radiol Endod. 2010 Jun;109(6):803-14
20299247
Int J Oral Maxillofac Surg. 2010 Jul;39(7):633-40
20413269
J Oral Maxillofac Surg. 2010 Jul;68(7):1480-6
20417011
J Oral Maxillofac Surg. 2012 Jul;70(7):1648-58
21958662
Epilepsia. 1990 Sep-Oct;31(5):574-7
2205481
Ann R Australas Coll Dent Surg. 2008 Jun;19:133-5
22073466
Plast Reconstr Surg. 2012 Mar;129(3):535e-548e
22374003
Angle Orthod. 2012 Nov;82(6):1115-22
22506512
J Oral Maxillofac Surg. 2012 Nov;70(11):2641-7
22520568
J Oral Maxillofac Surg. 2012 Dec;70(12):2859-66
22677329
Oral Surg Oral Med Oral Pathol Oral Radiol. 2012 Nov;114(5 Suppl):S5-10
23083956
PLoS One. 2014 Jun 16;9(6):e99111
24932522
Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop. 2014 Sep;146(3):279-85
25172249
Orthod Craniofac Res. 2015 May;18(2):96-108
25545424
PLoS One. 2015 Jun 26;10(6):e0129514
26115172
Health Technol Assess. 2015 Aug;19(68):1-374
26321161
Evid Based Dent. 2015 Sep;16(3):69-71
26492797
Am J Med Genet. 1989 Jun;33(2):244-7
2788365
Clin Orthop Relat Res. 1989 Jan;(238):249-81
2910611
Lancet. 1995 Aug 12;346(8972):393-6
7623568
JAMA. 1995 Feb 1;273(5):408-12
7823387
BMJ. 1997 Sep 13;315(7109):629-34
9310563
Teratology. 1997 Nov;56(5):335-40
9451758
Teratology. 1999 Jan;59(1):39-50
9988882