Comparison of the efficiency of two types of intraoral splints in the RED system for maxillary distraction osteogenesis

PurposeThis study was conducted to compare the ratio of maxillary advancement to the amount of activation achieved by distraction osteogenesis (DOG) using a rigid external distraction system with two different types of intraoral splints and to evaluate the applicability of a new type of splint.Materials and methodsThe mechanical deformation and the distraction efficiency of two types of intraoral splints, Type 1 and Type 2, were evaluated. The Type 1 was a conventionally used intraoral splint. Type 2 was a reinforced, custom-made splint composed of twin-labial arches made of 0.060-in. orthodontic wires. In this study, 11 cleft lip and palate patients were analyzed; 5 patients were treated using Type 1 splint and the other 6 using Type 2. Lateral cephalograms taken at 4 stages—the onset, the end of activation, immediately after the removal of distraction device, and 1 year after distraction—were superimposed and measured to estimate the advancement and relapse at point A.ResultsType 2 splint demonstrated significantly higher strength than Type 1 in a tensile test. Distraction efficiency for Type 1 and Type 2 was 31.6% and 51.0%, respectively, demonstrating significantly higher efficiency for Type 2. On the other hand, the amount of relapse during the 1-year follow-up period did not show significant difference between two groups.ConclusionThe distraction efficiency was affected by the types of intraoral splints used and maxillary distraction could be effectively performed using the reinforced intraoral splint without impairing the stability after DOG.