WORLD JOURNAL OF ADVANCE
HEALTHCARE RESEARCH

Marwa T. Ibrahim*, Mohammed S. Khedr, Mahmoud E. Khalifa and Ibrahim M. Nowair

ABSTRACT

Purpose: This study was planned to compare the use of bone borne distractor versus hybrid distractor in repair of unilateral alveolar cleft. Materials & Methods: A 16 patients with unilateral alveolar cleft were included in this study. They were divided into two equal groups according to the type of distractor used, Group I: in which the bone- borne distractor (Liou cleft distractor) was used for alveolar cleft repair. Group II: in which the custom made hybrid distractor was used. Results: Stage I distraction: after three months, showed significant difference in the width of the cleft side in both groups as P-value was 0.007 in group I and P-value was 0.001 in group II. No significant differences in the vitality and mobility of teeth in both groups. The amount of relapse in the regenerate area at the different observation periods 3 and 6 months between both groups were statistically significant (P-value 0.018). Radiographic finding showed no significant difference of the inclination changes of the transported segment in group I (P-value 0.816), while in group II showed significant difference (P-value 0.001). Stage II alveolar cleft grafting: graft resorption and recurrence of fistula was recorded in one case of group II. The differences of the density of the grafted bone between the first month and six months in each group postoperatively were statistically significant in both groups as P-value 0.001 and 0.001 in group I and Group II respectively. Conclusion: Both types of distractors are suitable for treatment of alveolar cleft with some drawbacks related to each type of distractor which include, that the hybrid distractor was limited as it decreases the width of the alveolar cleft from 9 to 10 mm distance while the bone borne Liou distractor decrease the distance from 11 to 13 mm, also the high cost of Liou distractor compared to hybrid distractor.