Добавил:
kiopkiopkiop18@yandex.ru t.me/Prokururor I Вовсе не секретарь, но почту проверяю Опубликованный материал нарушает ваши авторские права? Сообщите нам.
Вуз: Предмет: Файл:
Ординатура / Хирургия / Библиотека им академика М.И. Перельмана / Книга_4421_Библиотеки_им_академика_М_И_Перельмана.pdf
Скачиваний:
0
Добавлен:
30.08.2026
Размер:
63 Мб
Скачать
288
M. Daya and J. E. Portnof
19
. Fig. 19.4 MMA case in patient with history of cleft lip and pal-
ate. Virtual surgical planning with predictive movements (top). Pre­operative lateral cephalogram (lower left) shows the anteroposterior
deciency of the maxilla. Postoperative lateral cephalogram with MMA and hardware in place
Management ofObstructive Sleep Apnea (OSA) inCraniofacial Patients
289
19
. Fig. 19.5 Severe facial asymmetry case. Virtual surgical planning for correction of facial asymmetry with LeFort I osteotomy, right BSSO
and left inverted L osteotomy (top). Postsurgical panoramic X-ray with asymmetry corrected (bottom)
19
290
M. Daya and J. E. Portnof
. Fig. 19.6 Anterior mandibular osteotomy with the aid of virtual
planning the exact location of the genial tubercles. This allows to plan the osteotomies incorporating the muscle attachment for advancement and the fabrication of patient-specic plates for rigid xation

Bibliography

1. Bell WH, Guerrero CA.Distraction osteogenesis of the facial skeleton. Hamilton: BC Decker Inc.; 2007.
2. McCarthy JG. Distraction of the craniofacial skeleton. NewYork: Springer; 1999.
3. Yu W, Wang M, Yao K, Cai M. Individualized therapy for treating obstructive sleep apnea in pediatric Crouzon syndrome patients. Sleep Breath. 2016:1119–29. https://doi.org/10.1007/
s11325-016-1378-0.
4. Heggie AA, Portnof JE, Kumar R.The rotational genioplasty: a modied technique for patients with obstructive sleep apnoea. Int J Oral Maxillofac Surg. 2015;44(6):760–2. https://doi.
org/10.1016/j.ijom.2015.01.019. Epub 2015 Feb 24.
5. Abraham C, Virbalas J, DelRosso LM. Severe obstructive sleep apnea in a child with Goldenhar syndrome and nasal obstruction. J Clin Sleep Med. 2017;13(6):825–7. https://doi.
org/10.5664/jcsm.6626.
6. Baugh AD, Wooten W, Chapman B, Drake AF, Vaughn BV. Sleep characteristics in Goldenhar syndrome. Int J Pediatr Otorhinolaryngol. 2015;79(3):356–8. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
ijporl.2014.12.024.
7. Kaban LB, Bouchard C, Troulis MJ.Management of pediatric TMJ ankylosis. J Oral Maxillofac Surg. 2009;67:1966–78.
8. Cohen MM Jr. Perspectives on craniofacial anomalies, syn­dromes and other disorders. In: Lin KY, Ogle RC, Jane JA, editors. Craniofacial surgery: science and surgical techniques. Philadelphia: Saunders; 2002. p.3–38.
9. Obstructive sleep apnea. In: Miloro M, Kilokythas A, editors. Management of complications in oral and maxillofacial surgery. West Sussex: Wiley-Blackwell; 2012. p.149–74.
10. Sher AE, Shprintzen RJ, Thorpy MJ. Endoscopic observations of obstructive sleep apnea in children with anomalous upper air­ways: predictive and therapeutic value. Int J Pediatr Otorhino­laryngol. 1986;11:135–46.
11. Forrest CR, Hopper RA. Craniofacial syndromes and sur­gery. Plast Reconstr Surg. 2013;131(1):86–109. https://doi.
org/10.1097/PRS.0b013e318272c12b.
12. Paliga JT, Tahiri Y, Silvestre J, Taylor JA.Screening for obstruc­tive sleep apnea in children treated at a major craniofacial center. J Craniofac Surg. 2014;25(5):1762–5. https://doi.org/10.1097/
SCS.0000000000001119.
13. Sittitavornwong S, Waite PD. Imaging the upper airway in patients with sleep disordered breathing. Oral Maxillofac Surg Clin North Am. 2009;21(4):389–402. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
coms.2009.08.004.
14. Poon C, Meara J, Heggie A.Hemifacial microsomia: use of the OMENS-plus classication at the Royal Children’s Hospital of Melborne. Plast Reconstr Surg J. 2003;11(3):1011–8.
15. Breik O, Mahindu A, Moore MH, Molloy CJ, Santoreneos S, David DJ. Apert syndrome: surgical outcomes and perspec­tives. J Cranio-Maxillofac Surg. 2016;44(9):1238–45. https://doi.
org/10.1016/j.jcms.2016.06.001.
16. Müller-Hagedorn S, Buchenau W, Arand J, Bacher M, Poets CF.Treatment of infants with Syndromic Robin sequence with modied palatal plates: a minimally invasive treatment option. Head Face Med. 2017;13(1):1–9. https://doi.org/10.1186/s13005-
017-0137-1.
17. Gungor A. Advanced airway management strategies for severe OSAS and craniofacial anomalies. Am J Otolaryngol – Head Neck Med Surg. 2017;38(1):77–81. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
amjoto.2016.09.016.
18. Szpalski C, Vandegrift M, Patel PA, Appelboom G, Fisher M, Marcus J, et al. Unilateral craniofacial microsomia: unrec­ognized cause of pediatric obstructive sleep apnea. J Cra­niofac Surg. 2015;26(4):1277–82. https://doi.org/10.1097/
SCS.0000000000001551.
19. Waselchuk E, Sidman JD, Lander T, Tibesar R, Roby BB.Sleep and speech outcomes after superior adenoidectomy in children with cleft palate. Cureus. 2018;10(1):1–6. https://doi.org/10.7759/
cureus.2097.
20. Cistulli PA. Craniofacial abnormalities in obstructive sleep apnoea: implications for treatment. Respirology. 1996;1(3):167–
74. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1440-1843.1996.tb00028.x.
21. van Lieshout MJS, Joosten KFM, Koudstaal MJ, van der Schroeff MP, Dulfer K, Mathijssen IMJ, Wolvius EB. Man-
Management ofObstructive Sleep Apnea (OSA) inCraniofacial Patients
291
19
agement and outcomes of obstructive sleep apnea in children with Robin sequence, a cross-sectional study. Clin Oral Investig. 2017;21(6):1971–8. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00784-016-1985-y.
22. Bouchard C, Troulis MJ, Kaban LB.Management of obstruc­tive sleep apnea: role of distraction osteogenesis. Oral Max­illofac Surg Clin North Am. 2009;21(4):459–75. https://doi.
org/10.1016/j.coms.2009.07.001.
23. Rachmiel A, Aizenbud D, Emodi O.Management of obstructive sleep apnea in pediatric craniofacial anomalies. Ann Maxillofac Surg. 2012;2(2):111. https://doi.org/10.4103/2231-0746.101329.
24. Lee WC, Tu YK, Huang CS, Chen R, Fu MW, Fu E.Pharyn­geal airway changes following maxillary expansion or protrac­tion: a meta-analysis. Orthod Craniofacial Res. 2018;21(1):4–11.
https://doi.org/10.1111/ocr.12208.
25. Moraleda-Cibrián M, Edwards SP, Kasten SJ, Buchman SR, Berger M, O’Brien LM.Obstructive sleep apnea pretreatment and posttreatment in symptomatic children with congenital cra­niofacial malformations. J Clin Sleep Med. 2015;11(1):37–43.
https://doi.org/10.5664/jcsm.4360.
293
Miniscrew-Assisted Maxillary Expansion Techniques forTreatment ofObstructive Sleep Apnea
AudreyJung-SunYoon, StanleyYung-ChuanLiu, andChristian Guilleminault
Contents
20.1 Introduction – 294
20.2 Dierent Designs ofMiniscrew- Assisted/Bone-Anchored Rapid Maxillary Expanders – 294
20
20.3 Installation of Miniscrew-Assisted Maxillary Expanders – 296
20.4 Distraction Osteogenesis Maxillary Expansion (DOME) Protocol – 296
20.4.1 Custom Design andInstallation ofExpanders – 296
20.4.2 Surgical Technique (DOME) – 298
20.4.3 Activation ofExpander andOrthodontic Treatment – 298
20.4.4 Consolidation Phase – 299
20.4.5 Determining theAmount ofExpansion – 299
20.4.6 Retention andRelapse – 300
20.5 Case Result ofDOME – 300
20.6 Discussion – 301
References – 303
© Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2021 K. B. Kim et al. (eds.), Management of Obstructive Sleep Apnea, https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-54146-0_20
294
A. J.-S. Yoon et al.
20

20.1 Introduction

An important element of obstructive sleep apnea (OSA) pathophysiology involves risk factors created by the maxillofacial and oropharyngeal anatomy [1]. Maxillary constriction is associated with alterations in tongue pos­ture resulting in retroglossal airway narrowing which is one of the dening characteristics of OSA [1]. Maxillary constriction with a high arch palate appears to be one of reasons for high nasal airway resistance and this trans­verse deciency of the maxilla is associated as a poten­tial contributor to the development of OSA [2].
In the pediatric population with patent sutural junc­tions, rapid maxillary expansion (RME) corrects the transverse discrepancy of the hypoplastic maxilla by bony expansion along the mid-palatal and circummaxil­lary sutures. Overall, there is an increased nasal cavity volume and resultant decrease in nasal airow resistance [3]. Expansion also widens the distance between dilator muscles of the upper airway. The soft tissue sequela of maxillary expansion is allowing the tongue to protrude forward and upward, thus expanding the posterior pha­ryngeal airway space [4]. Therefore, RME is an effective treatment for OSA in patients with maxillary constric­tion [5]. In a 12-year follow-up study, Pirelli has con­rmed stable, long-term results post-RME treatment for pediatric OSA [6].
In children, maxillary widening often does not require surgical intervention since the mid-palatal suture is still patent; the maxilla is widened simply by placing a RME appliance in the palate anchored to the teeth. Biologically, fusion of the mid-palatal suture occurs during the early teens and often coincides with the pubertal growth spurt [7]. Any attempts to expand the maxilla after the sutures have fused often incorporate surgical osteotomy to facilitate expansion. Even so, the expanders still exert lateralizing forces on the dentition, and expansion forces tend to concentrate more on the supporting dental segments rather than the mid-palate or nasal oor. In 1964, a study by Krebs on orthopedic transverse modication demonstrated that expansion is 50% skeletal and 50% dental in younger children while the percentage dramatically changes to 35% skeletal and 65% dental in adolescents [8]. Over the years, there have been many RME design modications to minimize den­tal side effects while maximizing skeletal expansion.
With the introduction of temporary skeletal attach­ments, bone miniscrews can be placed in the maxilla to
secure a RME appliance such that it can directly apply forces to the maxilla, effectively bypassing teeth as anchor units. This creates new avenues of maxillary expansion even if no teeth are present and avoids any undesirable tooth movement. This new group of miniscrew- anchored maxillary expanders can attain greater physiologic suture expansion, minimize nega­tive dentoalveolar iatrogenic effects, and achieve maxi­mum nasal expansion as compared to conventional RME [9, 10].
Even with creative efforts to transfer lateral forces of RME expansion screw directly to the maxillary bone, the success of suture split and skeletal expansion with­out osteotomy is not always predictable in the adult OSA population. To increase the success of maxillary skeletal expansion, Yoon, Liu, and Guilleminault have developed the “Distraction Osteogenesis Maxillary Expansion (DOME) protocol for adult OSA patients which integrates minimally invasive osteotomies with miniscrew-anchored maxillary RME [11]. This estab­lishes much more predictable skeletal expansion results and more importantly reliable OSA improvements [12].
In this chapter, various miniscrew-anchored RME expansion designs and techniques for the treatment of OSA are introduced with or without corticotomy in order to achieve maximum improvement of OSA.
20.2 Dierent Designs ofMiniscrew-
Assisted/Bone-Anchored Rapid Maxillary Expanders
There are numerous designs of bone-anchored expand­ers that can be applied in OSA maxillary expansion cases: bar type, multiple miniscrew-supported expander, acrylic supporting design, hybrid design, customized “specic to patient” design (. Fig.20.1).
The advantages and disadvantages of each design type are listed in . Table20.1.
There are reports that some of these expanders are sufcient to overcome sutural tension without surgery and can be a practical alternative to surgically assisted rapid palatal expansion in specic cases especially for teenagers and young adults. However, the most reliable and effective technique is still introducing site-specic osteotomies with a bone-anchored expander to mini­mize iatrogenic dental and periodontal damage in the older adult OSA population [13, 14].
ab
Miniscrew-Assisted Maxillary Expansion Techniques forTreatment ofObstructive Sleep Apnea
295
20
c
d
e
f
. Fig. 20.1 Different types of miniscrew-assisted maxillary
expander. a Bar type. b Multiple miniscrew-supported expander. c Acrylic supporting design. d Hybrid design (combination of tooth­and bone-anchored expander). e & f Customized designs; any cus-
tom combination of numbers of bone screws, location of screws, and different design of jackscrews specic to the shape and thickness of palate
296
A. J.-S. Yoon et al.
20
20.3 Installation of Miniscrew-Assisted
Maxillary Expanders
The surgeon usually places the miniscrews or certain types of expanders such as the bar-type expander (. Fig.20.2) [15].
The RME device is traditionally placed by the orthodontist prior to surgery. Different designs have varying protocols for installation depending on the type
. Table 20.1 The advantages and disadvantages of each
design type of miniscrew-assisted maxillary expanders
Design Advantage Disadvantage
Bar type
5 KLS Martin
RPE
5 TPD
(Transpalatal distractor)
Multiple miniscrew­supported expander
Acrylic base reinforced with four miniscrews
5 C-expander
5 Pre-fabricated
design
5 Same day
appointment process (no lab work necessary)
5 Can be inserted
in areas with very narrow palate
5 Can choose
design with miniscrew anchors on the side of palate or secured on roof of palate
5 Can be
custom-made to individual
5 No teeth
involvement to avoid any dental periodontal damage
5 Cost-effective 5 Fabricated
in-house
5 Easy
refabrication for second expander
5 Can be
custom-made to individual
5 Able to insert
very narrow palate
5 No teeth
involvement to avoid any dental periodontal damage
5 Technique-sensitive:
Screw needs to be
placed at a non-favorable angle
5 Difcult to position–
must be parallel to expansion vector to avoid asymmetric expansion
5 Only single point
contact on each side resulting in more concentrated forces during expansion
5 High cost of
fabrication
5 High cost of
components
5 Multiple piece
fabrication
5 Process requires
multiple appointments to complete
5 Technique-sensitive 5 Difcult to remove
miniscrews after use
5 Potential for food
trap, especially surface area junction between acrylic and contact with surface of palatal tissue
5 Multiple
appointmentprocess
(continued)
. Table 20.1 (continued)
Design Advantage Disadvantage
Hybrid design: 2 molar bands+2 miniscrews
5 Hybrid hyrax
(Ludwig Design)
Hybrid design: 2 molar bands+4 miniscrews
5 MSE
(maxillary skeletal expander)
5 Easy to insert
and remove miniscrews
5 Reduced
inventory
5 Can be
custom-made to individual
5 Easy
refabrication for second expander
5 High success
rate of mid-palatal suture splits on young adults
5 Pre-fabricated
design of jackscrew including miniscrew insertion holes
5 Easy to insert
and remove miniscrews
5 Simple technique 5 High success
rate of mid-palatal suture splits on young adults
5 High cost of
fabrication
5 High cost of
components
5 Multiple piece
fabrication
5 Multiple appointment
process
5 Too bulky to insert
into very narrow palate
5 High cost of
fabrication
5 High cost of
component
5 Multiple appointment
process
5 Jackscrews are too
big for very narrow palate
5 Location of
mini-screw insertion into bone are limited and dictated by the pre-fabricated holes of expander
5 Once miniscrew
anchorage fails, it is hard to change the location
5 Miniscrews often
penetrate through nasal cavity (oroantral stula)
of expander. The following are examples of designs which are usually placed by orthodontist (. Figs.20.3 and 20.4).
20.4 Distraction Osteogenesis Maxillary
Expansion (DOME) Protocol
20.4.1 Custom Design andInstallation
ofExpanders
All pre-fabricated miniscrew-retained expanders have an inherent limitation of where the insertion points of the miniscrews can be located. Optimizing the placement of one miniscrew may compromise the other miniscrews due to irregular bone thickness and density throughout
Miniscrew-Assisted Maxillary Expansion Techniques forTreatment ofObstructive Sleep Apnea
. Fig. 20.2 Bar-type expander: transpalatal distractor (TPD). (Courtesy of Dr. Bart Vande Vannet)
297
20
. Fig. 20.3 Fabrication, insertion of acrylic-base expander (C-implant), and expansion result. (Courtesy of Dr. Seong-Hun Kim). Suture
separation was achieved without osteotomy at patient’s age of 17
the palate. To increase the success rate of expansion and decrease potential complications (e.g., miniscrew loos­ening, miniscrew perforation through the maxillary sinus, etc.), the anatomic structures (especially bone thickness at various locations of the palate) should be carefully mapped using 3-D cone-beam computed tomography (CBCT) imaging to generate a custom­fabricated expander design. The density and thickness
of palatal bone information gained from CBCT data provide information to identify optimal positions for placement of screws, deciding on the proper length of screws to use, mapping suture location, and evaluating status of sutural fusion. Recommended placement of miniscrews would be as close to the mid-palatal suture as possible with the caveat that sufcient bone thickness needs to be present. Also, bicortical engagement of the
298
A. J.-S. Yoon et al.
20
. Fig. 20.4 Installation of a hybrid-design expander (MSE) and expansion result. Suture separation was achieved without osteotomy at
patient’s age of 16
palatal roof should be ideal [16] using an optimal screw length as measured on CT so as not to create an oroan­tral stula and avoid root damage. The orthodontist and surgeon need to work closely and plan together
Fig.20.5).
(.
verify that screw threads are intact; symmetric and easy separation of the maxilla bilaterally should be observed. Patients with less severe OSA can be discharged on the day of surgery, while individuals presenting with more severe OSA should be monitored overnight as a safety precaution. The patient may resume a regular diet within a week.
20.4.2 Surgical Technique (DOME)
DOME begins with a limited osteotomy at the Le-Fort I level without down-fracturing. Additional auxiliary
20.4.3 Activation ofExpander
andOrthodontic Treatment
osteotomy at the midline of the maxilla may also be per­formed using a piezo-electric saw and wedge. As the suture opens, a dental central diastema develops imme­diately (. Fig. 20.6). The expander screw is turned to
The expander device is activated by turning some type of axial screw, usually at an expansion rate of 0.125–
0.25mm per day. On average, a total of 8–12mm maxil-