the effect of vertical mandibular distraction …

INVESTIGATION OF VERTICAL MANDIBULAR DISTRACTION OSTEOGENESIS ON THE MASTICATORY MUSCLES IN A ‘UNILATERAL HEMIFACIAL MICROSOMIA LIKE’ DEFECT

IN THE SHEEP MODEL

RUMAIZI SHAARI D.V.M (UPM), M.V.M (UPM)

Thesis submitted for the degree of DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY (PhD)

Oral and Maxillofacial Surgery Unit Dental School Faculty of Health Sciences

The University of Adelaide Adelaide, South Australia, 5005

October, 2005 Revision September, 2008

References Chapter 7

Investigation of Vertical Mandibular Distraction Osteogenesis on Masticatory Muscles in ‘Unilateral Hemifacial Microsomia Like’ Defect in the Sheep Model

226

M. (1962). "Disease of muscle. A study in pathology," Harper & Brothers, New York.

mandibular distraction osteogenesis. illofacial

Allbrook D., Baker Wde C., and Kirkaldy-Willis W. H. (1966). Muscle regeneration in experimental animals and in man. The cycle of tissue change that follows trauma in the

ed limb syndrome. The Journal of Bone and Joint Surgery 48: 153-169.

540-544 and 599-600.

Ariji E., Ariji Y., Yoshiura K., Kimura S., Horinouchi Y., and Kanda S. (1994). Ultrasonographic

Medicine, and Oral Pathology 78: 797-801.

teogenesis. Clinical Orthopaedic and Related Research: 124-131.

Avery J. K. (1994). "Oral Developement and Histology," Thieme Medical Publishers, New York.

Bakke M., Thomsen C. E., Vilmann A., Soneda K., Farella M., and Moller E. (1996). asonographic assessment of the swelling of the human masseter muscle after

static and dynamic activity. 41: 133-140.

Benington P. C. M., Gardener J. E., and Hunt N. P. (1999). Masseter muscle volume measured

Orthodontics 21: 659-670.

Bertram S., Bodner G., Rudisch A., Brandlmaier I., and Emshoff R. (2003a). Effect of scanning

anterior masseter muscle. Journal of Oral Rehabilitation 30: 430-435.

Bertram S., Brandlmaier I., Rudisch A., Bodner G., and Emshoff R. (2003b). Cross-sectional characteristics of the masseter muscle: an ultrasonographic study. InternationalJournal of Oral and Maxillofacial Surgery 32: 64-68.

CHAPTER 7: REFERENCES

Adams R. D., Denny-Brown D., and Pearson C.

Aida T., Yoshioka I., Tominaga K., and Fukuda J. (2003). Effects of latency period in a rabbit International Journal of Oral and Max

Surgery 32: 54-62.

injur

Angell E. H. (1860). Treatment of irregularity of the permanent or adult teeth. Dental Cosmos 1:

evaluation of inflammatory changes in the masseter muscle. Oral Surgery, Oral

Aronson J. (1991). The biology of distraction osteogenesis. In "Operative Principle of Illizarov: Fracture Treatment, Non-union, Osteomyelitis, Lengthening, Deformity Correction." (A. Maiocchi, and J. Aronson, Eds.), pp. 42-52, Williams and Wilkins, Baltimore.

Aronson J. (1994a). Experimental assessment of bone regenerate quality during distraction osteogenesis. In "Bone Formation and Repair" (C. Brighton, G. Friedlander, and J. Lane, Eds.), pp. 441-463, The American Academy of Orthopaedic Surgeons, Illinois.

Aronson J. (1994b). Temporal and spatial increases in blood flow during distraction os

UltrArchives of Oral Biology

using ultrasonography and its relationship with facial morphology. European Journal of

level and muscle condition on ultrasonographic cross-sectional measurements of the



227

lock M. S., Daire J., Stover J., and Matthews M. (1993). Changes in the inferior alveolar nerve ening in the dog using distraction osteogenesis. Journal of

ery 51: 652-660.

ustralia, Australia.

Butterfield R. (1988). "New concepts of sheep growth," University of Sydney, Australia.

S. (2002). Effects of distraction on muscle length: mechanisms

Calandrlogy 1: 231-247.

Convers

183, Mosby, United States of America.

Bfollowing mandibular lengthOral and Maxillofacial Surg

Bosanquet A. G. (1988). The effect of meniscal surgery in sheep temporomandibular joints. In "MDS", The University of Adelaide, South A

Bosanquet A. G., and Goss A. N. (1987). The sheep as a model for temporomandibular joint surgery. International Journal of Oral and Maxillofacial Surgery 16: 600-603.

Brooke M. H., and Kaiser K. K. (1970). Muscle fiber types: how many and what kind? Archives of Neurology 23: 369-379.

Caiozzo V. J., Utkan A., Chou R., Khalafi A., Chandra H., Baker M., Rourke B., Adams G., Baldwin K., and Green involved in sarcomerogenesis. Clinical Orthopaedics and Related Research: 133-145.

iello B. (1975). The behaviour of muscle fibres during surgical lengthening of a limb. Italian Journal of Orthopaedics and Traumato

Castano F. J., Troulis M. J., Glowacki J., Kaban L. B., and Yates K. E. (2001). Proliferation of masseter myocytes after distraction osteogenesis of the porcine mandible. Journal of Oral and Maxillofacial Surgery 59: 302-307.

Cho B. C., Shin D. P., Park J. W., and Baik B. S. (2001). Bimaxillary osteodistraction for the treatment of facial asymmetry in adults. British Journal of Plastic Surgery 54: 491-498.

Codivilla A. (1905). On the means of lengthening in the lower limbs, the muscle and tissues which are shortened through deformity. American Journal of Orthopeadic Surgery 2: 353-357.

Cohen M. M., Jr., Rollnick B. R., and Kaye C. I. (1989). Oculoauriculovertebral spectrum: an updated critique. Cleft Palate Journal 26: 276-286.

e J. M., and Shapiro H. H. (1952). Treatment of developmental malformations of the jaws. Plastic and Reconstructive Surgery 10: 473-510.

Cope J. B., and Samchukov M. L. (2001). Classification of mandibular regenerate bone. In "Craniofacial Distraction Osteogenesis" (M. L. Samchukov, J. B. Cope, and A. M. Cherkashin, Eds.), pp. 176-

Cope J. B., Samchukov M. L., and Cherkashin A. M. (1999). Mandibular distraction osteogenesis: a historic perspective and future directions. American Journal of Orthodontic, Dentofacial and Orthopeadics 115: 448-460.

Cousley R., Naora H., Yokoyama M., Kimura M., and Otani H. (2002). Validity of the Hfm transgenic mouse as a model for hemifacial microsomia. The Cleft Palate-Craniofacial Journal 39: 81-92.



228

Cousley R. R., and Calvert M. L. (1997). Current concepts in the understanding and

Day C. S., Moreland M. S., Floyd S. S., Jr., and Huard J. (1997). Limb lengthening promotes

De Deyne P. G. (2002). Lengthening of muscle during distraction osteogenesis. Clinical

De Deyne P. G., Hayatsu K., Meyer R., Paley D., and Herzenberg J. E. (1999). Muscle urnal of

Orthopaedic Research 17: 560-570.

De Dey

and Related Research: 259-269.

De Jong e of the mandible in the domestic sheep: A biomechanical analysis using EMG as an estimator of muscle force.

Del San glish J. D., Samchukov M. L., and Bell W. H. (2000). Long-term skeletal and dental effects of mandibular symphyseal distraction

Douma E., Kuftinec M. M., and Moshiri F. (1991). A comparative study of stability after

and omnivores. Angle of

Dubey

Eiselberg F., V (1906). Ueber plastik bei ektropium des unterkiefers. Wiener Klinische

Cousley R. R. (1993). A comparison of two classification systems for hemifacial microsomia. British Journal of Oral and Maxillofacial Surgery 31: 78-82.

management of hemifacial microsomia. British Journal of Plastic Surgery 50: 536-551.

muscle growth. Journal of Orthopeadic Research 15: 227-234.

Orthopaedic and Related Research: S171-177.

regeneration and fiber-type transformation during distraction osteogenesis. Jo

ne P. G., Meyer R., Paley D., and Herzenberg J. E. (2000). The adaptation of perimuscular connective tissue during distraction osteogenesis. Clinical Orthopaedics

h H. J., Dantuma R., and Sluijsmans H. M. J. (1989). The shap

Acta Morphologica Neerlando - Scandinavica 27: 63-73.

to M., Jr., Guerrero C. A., Buschang P. H., En

osteogenesis. American Journal of Orthodontic, Dentofacial and Orthopeadics 118: 485-493.

Demann E. T., and Haug R. H. (2002). Do position and soft tissue affect distraction vector? An in vitro investigation. Journal of Oral and Maxillofacial Surgery 60: 149-154.

mandibular advancement surgery. American Journal of Orthodontic, Dentofacial and Orthopeadic 100: 141-155.

Dovitch V., and Herzberg F. (1968). A radiographic study of the bony trabecular pattern in the mandibular rami of certain herbivores, carnovoresOrthodontist 38: 205-210.

J. P., Speer C. A., and Fayer R. (1989). "Sarcocystisis of Animals and Man," CRC Press, Boca Raton, Florida.

Dyce H. H., Sack W. O., and Wensing C. J. (1987). "Textbook of Veterinary Anatomy," W.B. Saunders, Philadelphia.

Wochenschrift 19: 1505-1508.



229

dy. Journal of Oral and Maxillofacial Surgery 41: 426-437.

Ellis E. advancement: a comparison of three postsurgical fixation techniques. American

Emshoff R., and Bertram S. (1995). The ultrasonic value of local muscle hypertrophy in patients

Emshoff R., and Bertram S. (1998). The short-term effect of stabilization-type splints on local

Emshoff R., Bertram S., Brandlmaier I., Scheiderbauer G., Rudisch A., and Bodner G. (2002).

Emshoff R., Bertram S., and Strobl H. (1999). Ultrasonographic cross-sectional characteristics

Emshoff R., Emshoff I., Rudisch A., and Bertram S. (2003). Reliability and temporal variation of

Enlow D. H. (1982). "Handbook of facial growth," W. B. Saunders, Ohio.

f a mouse model of mandibular distraction osteogenesis. Bone 34: 1004-1012.

Felemovlidation after distraction osteogenesis. The Journal of

Craniofacial Surgery 11: 430-436.

Fink B.al muscles during experimental tibial lengthening. Clinical

Orthopaedics and Related Research: 207-218.

Fink B., Neuen-Jacob E., Madej M., Lienert A., and Ruther W. (2000). Morphometric analysis of canine skeletal muscles following experimental callus distraction according to the

Finn B. P. (1994). The anatomy and biomechanics of the masticatory apparatus in the Australia

Ellis E., 3rd, and Carlson D. S. (1983). Stability two years after mandibular advancement with and without suprahyoid myotomy: an experimental stu

, 3rd, Reynolds S., and Carlson D. S. (1988). Stability of the mandible following

Journal of Orthodontic, Dentofacial and Orthopeadic 94: 38-49.

with temporomandibular joint disorders. Journal of Prosthetic Dentistry 73: 373-376.

cross-sectional dimensions of muscles of the head and neck. Journal of Prosthetic Dentistry 80: 457-461.

Ultrasonographic assessment of local cross-sectional dimensions of masseter muscle sites: a reproducible technique? Journal of Oral Rehabillitation 29: 1059-1062.

of muscles of the head and neck. Oral Surgery, Oral Medicine, Oral Pathology, Oral Radiology, and Endodontics 87: 93-106.

masseter muscle thickness measurements utilizing ultrasonography. Journal of Oral Rehabilitation 30: 1168-1172.

Fang T. D., Nacamuli R. P., Song H. M., Fong K. D., Warren S. M., Salim A., Carano R. A., Filvaroff E. H., and Longaker M. T. (2004). Creation and characterization o

icius J., Ortiz Monasterio F., Gomez Radillo L. S., and Serna A. (2000). Determining the optimal time for conso

, Neuen-Jacob E., Lienert A., Francke A., Niggemeyer O., and Ruther W. (2001). Changes in canine skelet

Ilizarov method. Journal of Orthopaedic Research 18: 620-628.

Merino Sheep. In "MDS", The University of Adelaide, Australia.



230

e Surgery 99: 366-371.

of bone. Plastic and Reconstructive Surgery 113: 566-573.

Gonzaled stability of bone segments during simultaneous bilateral

mandibular lengthening and widening by distraction. British Journal of Oral and

Gorlin R ertebral Dysplasia. Journal of Pediatrics 63: 991-999.

Gorlin R

Grayson B. H., McCormick S., Santiago P. E., and McCarthy J. G. (1997). Vector of device raniofacial Surgery 8:

473-480.

Grounds

Hecker J. F. (1983). "The sheep as an experimental animal," Academic Press, New York.

Hendricon with the MD-DOS device. Journal of

Cranio-Maxillo-Facial Surgery 27: 383-386.

Hollier Leconstractive Surgery

103: 1361-1370.

Horgan ENS-Plus: analysis of craniofacial and extracraniofacial anomalies in hemifacial microsomia. Cleft Palate Craniofacial Journal 32: 405-412.

Fisher E., Staffenberg D. A., McCarthy J. G., Miller D. C., and Zeng J. (1997). Histopathologic and biochemical changes in the muscles affected by distraction osteogenesis of the mandible. Plastic and Reconstructiv

Gassmann C. J., Van Sickels J. E., and Thrash W. J. (1990). Causes, location, and timing of relapse following rigid fixation after mandibular advancement. Journal of Oral and Maxillofacial Surgery 48: 450-454.

Glowacki J., Shusterman E. M., Troulis M., Holmes R., Perrott D., and Kaban L. B. (2004). Distraction osteogenesis of the porcine mandible: histomorphometric evaluation

z M., Bell W. H., Guerrero C. A., Buschang P. H., and Samchukov M. L. (2001). Positional changes an

Maxillofacial Surgery 39: 169-178.

. J., Jue K. L., Jacobsen U., and Goldschmidt E. (1963). Oculoauriculov

. J., Pindborg J. J., and McKusick V. A. (1964). "Syndromes of the head and neck. Hemifacial microsomia," McGraw-Hill, New York.

Grabb W. C. (1965). The first and second branchial arch syndrome. Plastic and Reconstructive Surgery 36: 485-508.

placement and trajectory of mandibular distraction. Journal of C

M. D. (1991). Towards understanding skeletal muscle regeneration. Pathology, Research and Practice 187: 1-22.

Hayatsu K., and De Deyne P. G. (2001). Muscle adaptation during distraction osteogenesis in skeletally immature and mature rabbits. Journal of Orthopaedic Research 19: 897-905.

kx K., Mommaerts M. Y., Jacobs W., Abeloos J. V., Neyt L. F., and De Clercq C. A. (1999). Proximal segment position after distracti

. H., Kim J. H., Grayson B., and McCarthy J. G. (1999). Mandibular growth after distraction in patients under 48 months of age. Plastic and R

J. E., Padwa B. L., LaBrie R. A., and Mulliken J. B. (1995). OM



231

as determined by 3-D CT imaging. The Journal of Craniofacial Surgery 12: 31-40.

Hullihenal of Dental Science 9: 157-

165.

Ilizarov

Ilizarov G. A. (1989). The tension-stress effect on the genesis and growth of tissues. Part I. The

gation. Ortoppediia Travmatologiia i Protezirovanie: 28-32.

Iyde Y., Nakazawa K., and Kamimura K. (1991). "Anatomical Atlas of the Temporomandibulat Joint," Quintessence Publishing Group.

Jarvinenpinion in Rheumatology 12: 155-161.

cial Genetics and Developmental Biology 11: 277-291.

Jubb KAcademic Press, London.

Juenger T. H., Klingmueller V., and Howaldt H. P. (1999). Application of ultrasound in callus

Kaban L. B., Moses M. H., and Mulliken J. B. (1988). Surgical correction of hemifacial

Kaban L. B., Padwa B. L., and Mulliken J. B. (1998). Surgical correction of mandibular hypoplasia in hemifacial microsomia: the case for treatment in early childhood. Journal

Kaban L lowacki J., Wahl D., Linke B., Rahn B., and Perrott D. H. (2003). Correlation of biomechanical stiffness with plain radiographic and

Huisinga-Fischer C. E., Vaandrager J. M., and Prahl-Andersen B. (2003). Longitudinal results of mandibular distraction osteogenesis in hemifacial microsomia. The Journal of Craniofacial Surgery 14: 924-933.

Huisinga-Fischer C. E., Zonneveld F. W., Vaandrager J. M., and Prahl-Andersen B. (2001). Relationship in hypoplasia between the masticatory muscles and the craniofacial skeleton in hemifacial microsomia,

S. P. (1848). Case of elongation of the under jaw and distortion of the face and neck, caused by a burn successfully treated. American Journ

G. A. (1988). The principles of the Ilizarov method. Bulletin of the Hospital forJoint Diseases Orthopaedic Insttitute 48: 1-11.

influence of stability of fixation and soft-tissue preservation. Clinical Orthopaedic and Related Research: 249-281.

Ilizarov G. A., Kaplunov A. G., Shevtsov V. I., Trokhova V. G., and Shatokhin V. D. (1979). Methods of modeling of the leg form and its elon

T. A., Kaariainen M., Jarvinen M., and Kalimo H. (2000). Muscle strain injuries. Current O

Johnston M. C., and Bronsky P. T. (1991). Animal models for human craniofacial malformations. Journal of Craniofa

. V. F., Kennedy P. C., and Palmer N. (1991). "Pathology of domestic animals,"

distraction of the hypoplastic mandible: an additional method for the follow-up. Journal of Cranio-maxillo-facial Surgery 27: 160-167.

microsomia in the growing child. Plastic and Reconstructive Surgery 82: 9-19.

of Oral and Maxillofacial Surgery 56: 628-638.

. B., Thurmuller P., Troulis M. J., G



232

Kane A. A., Lo L. J., Christensen G. E., Vannier M. W., and Marsh J. L. (1997). Relationship

Karaharju-Suvanto T. (1994). Cephalometric changes after gradual lengthening of the mandible: an experimental study in sheep. Dentomaxillofacial Radiology 23: 159-162.

Karaharnd Peltonen J. (1993). Distraction bone healing. Clinical Orthopaedics and

Related Research: 38-43.

Karp N issons H. A., and Thorne C. H. (1992). Membranous bone lengthening: a serial histological study. Annals of Plastic Surgery

Karp N. . G., and Sissons H. A. (1990). Bone lengthening in the craniofacial skeleton. Annals of Plastic Surgery 24: 231-237.

Kaye Cd Morton N. E. (1992). Oculoauriculovertebral anomaly:

segregation analysis. American Journal of Medical Genetics 43: 913-917.

Kearns 9). Hemifacial microsomia: the disorder and its surgical management. In "Maxillofacial Surgery Volume 2" (P. W. Booth, S. A.

Kelberman D., Tyson J., Chandler D. C., McInerney A. M., Slee J., Albert D., Aymat A., Botma

standing the genetic basis of a complex malformation syndrome. Human Genetics 109: 638-645.

Kim K. W. (1993). Histomorphologic changes in expanded skeletal muscle in rats. Plastic and Reconstructive Surgery 92: 710-716.

Ko E. Wr follow-up study. The Cleft Palate -

Craniofacial Journal 41: 5-12.

Kojimoto ening in rabbits by callus distraction. The role of periosteum and endosteum. The Journal of

Koolstra aeije M. (1988). A three-dimensional mathematical model of the human masticatory system predicting maximum possible

ultrasound data in an experimental mandibular distraction wound. International Journal of Oral and Maxillofacial Surgery 32: 296-304.

between bone and muscles of mastication in hemifacial microsomia. Plastic and Reconstractive Surgery 99: 990-997.

ju E. O., Aalto K., Kahri A., Lindberg L. A., Kallio T., Karaharju-Suvanto T., Vauhkonen M., a

. S., McCarthy J. G., Schreiber J. S., S

29: 2-7.

S., Thorne C. H., McCarthy J

. I., Martin A. O., Rollnick B. R., Nagatoshi K., Israel J., Hermanoff M., Tropea B., Richtsmeier J. T., an

G. J., Padwa B. L., and Kaban L. B. (199

Schendel, and J. E. Hausamen, Eds.), pp. 917-942, Churchill Livingstone, Britian.

M., Calvert M., Goldblatt J., Haan E. A., Laing N. G., Lim J., Malcolm S., Singer S. L., Winter R. M., and Bitner-Glindzicz M. (2001). Hemifacial microsomia: progress in under

H., Hong C., and Futrell J.

., Hung K. F., Huang C. S., and Chen P. K. (2004). Correction of facial asymmetry with multiplanar mandible distraction: a one-yea

H., Yasui N., Goto T., Matsuda S., and Shimomura Y. (1988). Bone length

Bone and Joint Surgery. British Volume 70: 543-549.

J. H., van Eijden T. M., Weijs W. A., and N

bite forces. Journal of Biomechanics 21: 563-576.



233

Kunz Cmity in hemifacial microsomia patients

using multifocal distraction osteogenesis. Journal of Oral and Maxillofacial Surgery 61:

Kutsevliak V. I., and Sukachev V. A. (1984). Distraction of the mandible in an experiment. Stomatologiia 63: 13-15.

Lee D. Y l lengthening on the gastrocnemius muscle. A histopathologic and morphometric study

Lewis M. P., Machell J. R., Hunt N. P., Sinanan A. C., and Tippett H. L. (2001). The extracellular matrix of muscle--implications for manipulation of the craniofacial

Lillie R. ). "Histopathologic technic and practical histochemistry," McGraw-Hill, New York.

Limberg mandible in unilateral microgenia and asymmetry of the face. The Journal of the American Dental

Limberg otimy of the ascending rami of thr mandible. Dental Cosmos 67: 1191-1200.

Lindseylimb

lengthening on skeletal muscle. Clinical Orthopaedics and Related Research: 278-287.

Liu Z. J

Louryan S., Heymans O., and Goffard J. C. (1995). Ear malformations in the mouse embryo

Ma B. (2002). Growth modification of the temporomandibular joint by functional appliances:

Mackoo ., and McCarthy J. G. (2003). Volumetric change of the medial pterygoid following distraction osteogenesis of the

., Brauchli L., Moehle T., Rahn B., and Hammer B. (2003). Theoretical considerations for the surgical correction of mandibular defor

364-368.

., Choi I. H., Chung C. Y., Chung P. H., Chi J. G., and Suh Y. L. (1993). Effect of tibia

in rabbits. Acta Orthopaedic Scandinavica 64: 688-692.

musculature. European Journal of Oral Sciences 109: 209-221.

D. (1965

A. (1928). A new method of plastic lengthening of the

Association 15: 851-871.

A. A. (1925). Treatment of openbite by means of plastic oblique oste

C. A., Makarov M. R., Shoemaker S., Birch J. G., Buschang P. H., Cherkashin A. M., Welch R. D., and Samchukov M. L. (2002). The effect of the amount of

., King G. J., and Herring S. W. (2003). Alterations of morphology and microdensity in the condyle after mandibular osteodistraction in the rat. Journal of Oral and Maxillofacial Surgery 61: 918-927.

following maternal administration of triazene, with clinical implications. Surgical and Radiologic Anatomy 17: 59-63.

Luce E. A., McGibbon B., and Hoopes J. E. (1977). Velopharyngeal insufficiency in hemifacial microsomia. Plastic and Reconstructive Surgery 60: 602-606.

Histomorphometric study using sheep. In "PhD", The University of Adelaide, Adelaide.

l R. J., Hopper R. A., Grayson B. H., Holliday R

mandible: an example of the associated soft-tissue changes. Plastic and Reconstractive Surgery 111: 1804-1807.



234

Makarov M. R., Samchukov M. L., Cope J. B., and Muirhead D. E. (2001b). The effect of

nd A. M. Cherkashin, Eds.), pp. 75- 88, Mosby, United State of America.

Marquet in hemifacial microsomia.

American Journal of Orthodontic, Dentofacial Orthopedic 117: 130-139.

Marsh Jic and Reconstructive

Surgery 78: 460-470.

Martini L., Fini M., Giavaresi G., and Giardino R. (2001). Sheep model in orthopedic research: a literature review. Comparative Medicine 51: 292-299.

Mastagl

McCarthy J. G., Katzen J. T., Hopper R., and Grayson B. H. (2002). The first decade of

McCarthy J. G., Schreiber J., Karp N., Thorne C. H., and Grayson B. H. (1992). Lengthening

McCarthy J. G., Stelnicki E. J., and Grayson B. H. (1999). Distraction osteogenesis of the

McCarthy J. G., Stelnicki E. J., Mehrara B. J., and Longaker M. T. (2001). Distraction

McTavis R., and Poole M. D. (2000). Does the sheep mandible relapse following lengthening by distraction osteogenesis? Journal of Cranio-Maxillo-Facial Surgery 28: 251-257.

Makarov M. R., Kochutina L. N., Samchukov M. L., Birch J. G., and Welch R. D. (2001a). Effect of rhythm and level of distraction on muscle structure: an animal study. ClinicalOrthopaedic and Related Research: 250-264.

gradual traction on skeletal muscles. In "Craniofacial distraction osteogenesis" (M. L. Samchukov, J. B. Cope, a

z I. M., Fish L. C., and Stella J. P. (2000). Two-year follow-up of distraction osteogenesis: its effect on mandibular ramus heigh

. L., Celin S. E., Vannier M. W., and Gado M. (1986). The skeletal anatomy of mandibulofacial dysostosis (Treacher Collins syndrome). Plast

ia F. L., and Walton S. J. (1982). "Skeletal muscle pathology," Churchill Livingstone, London.

May N. D. (1970). "The anatomy of the sheep. A dissection manual," University of Queensland Press, Australia.

McCarthy J. G. (1994). The role of distraction osteogenesis in the reconstruction of the mandible in unilateral craniofacial microsomia. Clinics in Plastic Surgery 21: 625-631.

mandibular distraction: lessons we have learned. Plastic and Reconstructive Surgery 110: 1704-1713.

the human mandible by gradual distraction. Plastic and Reconstructive Surgery 89: 1-8; discussion 9-10.

mandible: a ten-year experience. Seminars in Orthodontics 5: 3-8.

osteogenesis of the craniofacial skeleton. Plastic and Reconstractive Surgery 107: 1812-1827.

McKenzie J., and Craig J. (1995). Mandibulofacial dysostosis. Archives of Disease of childhood 30: 391.

h J., Marucci D. D., Bonar S. F., Walsh W.



235

Michieli S., and Miotti B. (1977). Lengthening of mandibular body by gradual surgical-

Miyamorowth in lambs (A. N. Goss, Ed.), The University of Adelaide, Adelaide.

the masseter in lambs. BritishJournal of Oral and Maxillofacial Surgery 40: 116-121.

Miyamoto K., Vickers R., Ishimaru J. I., Ogi N., Kurita K., and Goss A. N. (1999). Effect of unilateral condylectomy on the sheep temporomandibular joint. British Journal of Oral

Mizumoto Y., Mizuta H., Nakamura E., and Takagi K. (1996). Distraction frequency and the

rgery 108: 1103-1114.

Munday B. L. (1975). The prevalence of sarcosporidiosis in Australian meat animals. Australian

Naora H., Kimura M., Otani H., Yokoyama M., Koizumi T., Katsuki M., and Tanaka O. (1994).

Meurmann Y. (1957). Congenital microtia and meatal atresia. Archives of Otolaryngology 66: 443.

orthodontic distraction. Journal of Oral Surgery 35: 187-192.

to H., Matsuura H., and Goss A. N. (2001a). The effect of unilateral condylectomy on mandibular g

Miyamoto H., Matsuura H., Jones R. H., Kurita K., and Goss A. N. (2001b). Unilateral mandibular condylectomy in lambs. British Journal of Oral and Maxillofacial Surgery 39: 304-309.

Miyamoto H., Matsuura H., Singh J., and Goss A. N. (2001c). The effect of unilateral myotomy of the masseter on mandibular growth in lambs (A. N. Goss, Ed.), The university of Adelaide, Adelaide.

Miyamoto H., Matsuura H., Singh J., and Goss A. N. (2002). Regeneration of the mandibular condyle after unilateral condylectomy and myotomy of

and Maxillofacial Surgery 37: 401-404.

gastrocnemius muscle in tibial lengthening. Studies in rabbits. Acta Orthopaedic Scandinavica 67: 562-565.

Mofid M. M., Manson P. N., Robertson B. C., Tufaro A. P., Elias J. J., and Vander Kolk C. A. (2001). Craniofacial distraction osteogenesis: a review of 3278 cases. Plastic and Reconstructive Su

Molina F., and Ortiz Monasterio F. (1995). Mandibular elongation and remodeling by distraction: a farewell to major osteotomies. Plastic and Reconstructive Surgery 96: 825-840.

Moss M. L., and Salentijn L. (1969). The primary role of functional matrices in facial growth. American Journal of Orthodontic 55: 566-577.

Mulliken J. B., and Kaban L. B. (1987). Analysis and treatment of hemifacial microsomia in childhood. Clinical Plastic Surgery 14: 91-100.

Veterinary Journal 51: 478-480.

Transgenic mouse model of hemifacial microsomia: cloning and characterization of insertional mutation region on chromosome 10. Genomics 23: 515-519.



236

ces Reviews 2: 3-28.

erica.

myographical observations. Electromyography and Clinical Neurophysiology 39: 217-220.

Paley Dthopaedic and related research: 81-104.

on. The Journal of Bone and Joint Surgery. British volume 79: 1014-1018.

Poswillo of England 43: 61-88.

Prabhu N. T., and Munshi A. K. (1994). Measurement of masseter and temporalis muscle

Pruzansky S. (1969). Not all dwarfed mandibles are alike. Birth Defect: Original Article Series

Raadsheer M. C., Kiliaridis S., Van Eijden T. M., Van Ginkel F. C., and Prahl-Andersen B.

32.

and craniofacial morphology to human bite force magnitude. Journal of Dental Research 78: 31-42.

Rachmi Maxillofacial

Surgery 53: 525-529.

Noble H. W. (1973). Comparative functional anatomy of temporomandibular joint. OralScien

Noden D. M., and de Lahunta A. (1985). "The Embryology of domestic animals," Library of Congress Cataloging in Publication Data, United States of Am

O'Donoghue P. J., and Ford G. E. (1986). The prevalence and intensity of Sarcocystis spp infections in sheep. Australian Veterinary Journal 63: 273-278.

Oey P. L., Engelbert R. H., van Roermond P. M., and Wieneke G. H. (1999). Temporary muscle weakness in the early phase of distraction during femoral lengthening. Clinical and electro

. (1990). Problems, obstacles, and complications of limb lengthening by the Ilizarov technique. Clinical or

Polley J. W., Figueroa A. A., Liou E. J., and Cohen M. (1997). Longitudinal analysis of mandibular asymmetry in hemifacial microsomia. Plastic and Reconstructive Surgery 99: 328-339.

Polo A., Aldegheri R., Zambito A., Trivella G., Manganotti P., De Grandis D., and Rizzuto N. (1997). Lower-limb lengthening in short stature. An electrophysiological and clinical assessment of peripheral nerve functi

D. (1968). The aetiology and surgery of cleft palate with micrognathia. Annals of the Royal Colleges of Surgeons

Poswillo D. (1973). The pathogenesis of the first and second branchial arch syndrome. OralSurgery, Oral Medicine and Oral Pathology 35: 302-328.

thickness using ultrasonographic technique. Journal of Clinical Pediatric Dentistry 19: 41-44.

5: 120-129.

(1996). Masseter muscle thickness in growing individuals and its relation to facial morphology. Archives of Oral Biology 41: 323-3

Raadsheer M. C., van Eijden T. M., van Ginkel F. C., and Prahl-Andersen B. (1999). Contribution of jaw muscle size

el A., Jackson I. T., Potparic Z., and Laufer D. (1995). Midface advancement in sheep by gradual distraction: a 1-year follow-up study. Journal of Oral and



237

l Genetics 15: 233-253.

9.

raniofacial Distraction Osteogenesis" (M. L. Samchukov, J. B. Cope, and A. M. Cherkashin, Eds.), pp. 21-36,

SamchuDistraction Osteogenesis" (M. L. Samchukov, J. B.

Cope, and A. M. Cherkashin, Eds.), pp. xxvii-xxxvi, Mosby, United States of America.

Scapino ology 116: 23-50.

Schendel S. A., Wolford L. M., and Epker B. N. (1978). Mandibular deficiency syndrome. III.

Schenk R., and Gachter A. (1994). "Histology of distraction osteogenesis: Bone formation and repair," Rosemont: American Academy of Orthopaedic Surgeons.

Schuma ffects on muscle. Leg lengthening studied in rabbits. Acta Orthopaedic Scandinavica 65: 647-650.

Schuma al muscles in the etiology of dysgnatias. Deutsche Stomatologie 21: 169-175.

Shevtsow during tibial thickening by the Ilizarov method. Bulletin Experimental Biology

and Medicine 134: 525-527.

Shilt J. S., Deeney V. F., and Quinn C. O. (2000). The effect of increased distraction frequency on soft tissues during limb lengthening in an animal model. Journal of Pediatric

Siegert ue swellings of the head and neck. Journal of Oral and Maxillofacial Surgery 45: 842-846.

Simpson of Bone and Joint Surgery 77: 630-

636.

Rollnick B. R., and Kaye C. I. (1983). Hemifacial microsomia and variants: pedigree data. American Journal of Medica

Ross R. B. (1975). Lateral facial dysplasia (first and second branchial arch syndrome, hemifacial microsomia). Birth Defects Original Article Series 11: 51-5

Samchukov M. L., Cope J. B., and Cherkashin A. M. (2001a). Biologic basis of new bone formation under the influence of tension stress. In "C

Mosby, United States of America.

kov M. L., Cope J. B., and Cherkashin A. M. (2001b). Introduction to distraction osteogenesis. In "Craniofacial

R. P. (1965). The third joint of the canine jaw. Journal of Morph

Schendel S. A., and Epker B. N. (1980). Results after mandibular advancement surgery: an analysis of 87 cases. Journal of Oral Surgery 38: 265-282.

Surgical advancement of the deficient mandible in growing children: treatment results in twelve patients. Oral Surgery, Oral Medicine and Oral Pathology 45: 364-377.

cher B., Keller J., and Hvid I. (1994). Distraction e

cher G. H. (1971). The role of the masticatory and faci

v V. I., Gordievskikh N. I., Bunov V. S., and Petrovskaya N. V. (2002). Changes in blood flo

Orthopaedics 20: 146-150.

R. (1987). Ultrasonography of inflammatory soft tiss

A. H., Williams P. E., Kyberd P., Goldspink G., and Kenwright J. (1995). The response of muscle to leg lengthening. The Journal



238

ort. Plastic and Reconstructive Surgery 51: 506-508.

Sun J. ural studies on myofibrillogenesis and neogenesis of skeletal muscles after prolonged traction in

Sun J. Sology and Histopathology 9: 699-703.

Swennen G., Dempf R., and Schliephake H. (2002). Cranio-facial distraction osteogenesis: a l and

Maxillofacial Surgery 31: 123-135.

Swenne ez C. (2001). Craniofacial distraction osteogenesis: a review of the literature: Part 1: clinical studies. International

Syed Za omia-like' deformity. In "Doctorate of Clinical Dentistry thesis", University of Adelaide,

Tavakoli K., Walsh W. R., Bonar F., Smart R., Wulf S., and Poole M. D. (1998). The role of

0.

Tidball J. G. (2005). Inflammatory processes in muscle injury and repair. American Journal of

Trauner 7). The surgical correction of mandibular prognathism and retrognathia with consideration of genioplasty. I. Surgical procedures to correct

al of Oral and Maxillofacial Surgery 61: 1144-1149.

Snyder C. C., Levine G. A., Swanson H. M., and Browne E. Z., Jr. (1973). Mandibular lengthening by gradual distraction. Preliminary rep

S., Hou S. M., Hang Y. S., Liu T. K., and Lu K. S. (1996). Ultrastruct

rabbits. Histology and Histopathology 11: 285-292.

., Hou S. M., Liu T. K., and Lu K. S. (1994). Analysis of neogenesis in rabbit skeletal muscles after chronic traction. Hist

Swash M., and Schwartz M. S. (1991). "Biopsy pathology of muscle," Chapman & Hall Medical, London.

review of the literature. Part II: Experimental studies. International Journal of Ora

n G., Schliephake H., Dempf R., Schierle H., and Malev

Journal of Oral and Maxillofacial Surgery 30: 89-103.

inal S. A. J. (2005). Vertical ramus distraction in sheep with 'hemifacail micros

Adelaide, Australia.

latency in mandibular osteodistraction. Journal of Cranio-Maxillo-Facial Surgery 26: 209-219.

Tenter A. M. (1995). Current research on Sarcocystis species of domestic animals. International Journal for Parasitology 25: 1311-133

Tidball J. G. (1995). Inflammatory cell response to acute muscle injury. Medicine and Science in Sports and Exercise 27: 1022-32.

Physiology. Regulatory, Integrative and Comparative Physiology 288: 345-353.

R., and Obwegeser H. (195

mandibular prognathism and reshaping of the chin. Oral Surgery, Oral Medicine and Oral Pathology 10: 677-689.

Troulis M. J., Coppe C., O'Neill M. J., and Kaban L. B. (2003). Ultrasound: assessment of the distraction osteogenesis wound in patients undergoing mandibular lengthening. Journ



239

8: 507-513.

ery 61: 615-620.

f distraction osteogenesis on structure and function of anterior digastric muscle fibers. Plastic and

Van Sickels J. E., Larsen A. J., and Thrash W. J. (1986). Relapse after rigid fixation of

Van Sic h W. J. (1988). A retrospective study of relapse in rigidly fixated sagittal split osteotomies: contributing factors. American Journal of

Van Sic rthognathic surgery: a review of rigid fixation. British Journal of Oral and Maxillofacial Surgery 34: 279-285.

van Stresis to lengthen the mandible: results in 50 patients. Journal of

Oral and Maxillofacial Surgery 62: 304-307.

Varughe of Clinical Dentistry thesis", University of Adelaide, Adelaide, Australia.

495-507.

Wiedemdic and Related Research: 291-304.

Troulis M. J., Glowacki J., Perrott D. H., and Kaban L. B. (2000). Effects of latency and rate on bone formation in a porcine mandibular distraction model. Journal of Oral and Maxillofacial Surgery 5

Tuz H. H., Kisnisci R. S., and Gunhan O. (2003). Histomorphometric evaluation of short-term changes in masseter muscle after lengthening the rabbit mandible by distraction osteogenesis. Journal of Oral and Maxillofacial Surg

van der Meulen J. H., Borschel G. H., Lynch J. B., Nicklin S., Ho K. C., Gianoutsos M. P., Walsh W. R., and Kuzon W. M., Jr. (2005). The effect of rate o

Reconstructive Surgery 115: 831-837.

mandibular advancement. Journal of Oral and Maxillofacial Surgery 44: 698-702.

kels J. E., Larsen A. J., and Thras

Orthodontic, Dentofacial and Orthopaedic 93: 413-8.

kels J. E., and Richardson D. A. (1996). Stability of o

ijen P. J., Breuning K. H., Becking A. G., and Tuinzing D. B. (2004). Stability after distraction osteogen

se J. (2002). Distraction Osteogenesis of the ramus in the sheep mandible. In "Doctorate

Vento A. R., LaBrie R. A., and Mulliken J. B. (1991). The O.M.E.N.S. classification of hemifacial microsomia. The Cleft Palate-Craniofacial Journal 28: 68-76.

Walker F. O., Cartwright M. S., Wiesler E. R., and Caress J. (2004). Ultrasound of nerve and muscle. Clinical Neurophysiology 115:

Weinberger B. W. (1916). The history of orthodontia: part 6. International Journal Of Orthodontic 2: 103-117.

Wescott A. A. (1859). A case of irregularity. Dental Cosmos 1: 60-68.

ann M. (1996). Callus distraction: a new method? A historical review of limb lengthening. Clincal Orthopae

Williams B. E., King G. J., Liu Z. J., and Rafferty K. L. (2005). Sequential histomorphometric analysis of regenerate osteogenesis following mandibular distraction in the rat. Archives of Oral Biology 50: 497-506.



240

3 (Pt 1): 131-138.

Williams P., Simpson H., Kyberd P., Kenwright J., and Goldspink G. (1999). Effect of rate of

The Anatomical Record 255: 78-83.

Williams

Xi Kou Qiang Yi Xue Za Zhi 20: 333-335.

Yasui Nic Clinics of North America 22: 563-567.

Williams P., Kyberd P., Simpson H., Kenwright J., and Goldspink G. (1998). The morphological basis of increased stiffness of rabbit tibialis anterior muscles during surgical limb-lengthening. Journal of Anatomy 19

Williams P., Simpson A., Kyberd P., Kenwright J., and Goldspink G. (1994). Structural changes in the rabbit tibialis anterior muscle following distraction of the tibia. Basic and Applied Myology 4: 431-437.

Williams P., Simpson H., Kenwright J., and Goldspink G. (2001). Muscle fibre damage and regeneration resulting from surgical limb distraction. Cells Tissues Organs 169: 395-400.

distraction on loss of range of joint movement, muscle stiffness, and intramuscular connective tissue content during surgical limb-lengthening: a study in the rabbit.

P. E., and Goldspink G. (1971). Longitudinal growth of striated muscle fibres. Journalof Cell Sciences 9: 751-767.

Xiao W., Shang W., and Li W. (2002). A histomorphologic and enzyme histochemical study of masticatory muscles affected by distraction osteogenesis of mandible. Hua

., Kojimoto H., Shimizu H., and Shimomura Y. (1991). The effect of distraction upon bone, muscle, and periosteum. The Orthoped

Appendixes Chapter 8


241

CHAPT

Fixative and Buffer

1. Neutr

Used: Fixation of tissue for light microscopy

Form

Sodium Di Hydrogen Orthophosphate 40 grams

9000 mls

1. Hot tap water, 900 mls in 2 litre plastic beaker.

2. Add Di Sodium Orthophosphate (64 grams), quick stirring.

3. Add Sodium Di Hydrogen Orthophosphate (40 grams), stir until mixture clear and make

up to 1 litre with cold tap water.

4. In bulk container, pour the above solution and add 8 litres of cold water and 1 litre of

formalin

ER 8: APPENDIXES

APPENDIX 1

al buffered formalin

ula: 10% Neutral buffered formalin pH Di Sodium Hydrogen Orthophosphate 64 grams

Tap water

Formalin 1000 mls

Preparation:



242

Used: Fixation of muscle tissue for electron microscopy

raformaldehyde (PFA)

0.2M cacodylate or phosphate buffer

1N

Preparation:

1. Dissolve 2

heated to 6

2. Add 1 to 2 drops of 1N NaOH and stir until the solution clears. Cool

10 ml of 25% glutaraldehyde.

late or phosphate

Karnovsky’s fixative

Formula: 4% Pa

5% Glutaraldehyde

0.05% CaCl2

sodium hydroxide

grams of paraformaldehyde in 25 ml of distilled water

0-70 ºC.

and add

3. Make up the volume to 50 ml with 0.2 M cacody

buffer.

4. If using cacodylate buffer, add 25 mg anhydrous CaCl2.

5. The final pH is 7.2.



243

APPENDIX 2 Mus

tadel 2000 automatic processor (Shandon

Industries, Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania) was used with the following automatic protocol for the

imp gnation o edding:

1. 70% e 2 hours

% alcohol 2nd change 2 hours

4. 1st change 2 hours

6. 2 hours

8. lene 1st change 2 hours

3rd change 2 hours

1. Paraffin 1st change 24 hours in vacuum

2. Paraffin 2nd change 24 hours in vacuum

3. Paraffin 3rd change 24 hours in vacuum

he muscle tissues were embedded in paraffin using a Reichert Jung Histostat.

cle Tissue Dehydration and Paraffin Embedding

Automatic tissue processor machine (Shandron Ci

re f tissues with paraffin wax prior to emb

alcohol 1st chang

2. 70

3. 80% alcohol 1st change 2 hours

90% alcohol

5. 100% alcohol 1st change 2 hours

100% alcohol 2nd change

7. 100% alcohol 3rd change 2 hours

Histo

9. Histolene 2nd change 2 hours

10. Histolene

1

1

1

T



244

Mayer’s haematoxylin and eosin

1. Remove wax

Xylol 2 min in

Absolute alcohol 2 min 2. Di eck3. Stain in haematoxylin 10 min 4. W at 1 min 5. Differentiate in 0.5% HCl 2 dip 6. W wa 10 min 7. Blue in dilute alkali (NH4OH in alcohol) 2 dip 8. Co osi 1 min 9. Differentiate in 70% alcohol 4 dip 10. Dehydrate and clear

Absolute alcohol 2 min 2 min

Xylol 2 min 2 min

A alum Glycerol

Eosin 10g dichromate 5g

Saturated picric acid 100ml Absolute alcohol 100ml Distilled water 800ml

APPENDIX 3

Stains for Light Microscopy

Xylol 2 min

Absolute alcohol 2 m

p in water to ch for complete wax removal

ash in running w er

ash in running ter

unterstain in e n

Absolute alcohol

Xylol 11. Mount and cover slip using DePex

Haematoxylin Formula: Haematoxylin 5 g mmonium 50 g 300 ml Distilled water 700ml Sodium iodate 1g Glacial acetic acid 20ml

Eosin

ormula: F Potassium



245

one Histological Technique

eagent formulae:

B

R

1. Lillie Mayer alum haematoxylin:

Aluminium amm

100 mls

1200 mls

Distilled water

2. A eosin:

1

1

A

14 mls

onium sulphate 200 g

Haematoxylin 20 g

Ethanol

Sodium iodate 4 g

Acetic acid 80 mls

Glycerol

2800 mls

lcohol acetified

% eosin 350 ml

% aqueous phloxine 35 mls

bsolute alcohol 2867mls

Acetic acid



246

ing 1. Haematoxylin and eosin stain

Sections were stained according to the following protocol (Lillie, 1965).

1. After the sections were cut, the slides were placed in a heater rack to melt the paraffin wax

and to achieve better adhesion of the tissue to the slide.

2. De-paraffinizing in a series of three xylene solutions to dissolve any residual wax .

3. Dehydration in a series of three absolute alcohol solutions.

4. Gentle rinsing in water bath.

5. Seven minutes in haematoxylin solutions.


7. Differentiating in acid alcohol solution.


9. Blueing in lithium carbonate solution.


11. Two minutes in eosin solution.

12. Dehydration in a series of two absolute alcohol solutions.

13. Clearing in a series of two xylene solutions.

14. Fixation of coverslip with pix adhesive.



247

. Van Gieson staining

2

Reagent formulae:

1. Van Gieson stain

Saturated aqueous picric acid 100 ml

1% aqueous acid fuchsin 10 ml

Sections were stained with Van Gieson according to the following protocol.

1. After sections were cut, the slides were placed in a heater rack to melt the

paraffin wax and to achieve better adhesion of the tissue to the slide.

2. De-paraffinizing in a series of three xylene solutions to dissolve any residual

wax.

3. Dehydration in a series of three absolute alcohol solutions

4. Three minutes in distilled water.

5. Twelve minutes in Van Gieson solution.

6. Careful blotting of slides to remove excess Van Gieson stain.

7. Dehydration in a series of two absolute alcohol solutions.

8. Clearing in a series of two xylene solutions.

9. Fixation of coverslip with pix adhesive



248

APPENDIX 4

Histopathology of the Distracted Ramus

Zainal S.A.J. Doctorate of Clinical Dentistry thesis (2005)) Group 1a, Pre distraction

Superior

(Adapted from Syed

Inferior

Lateral Medial Posterior Anterior

Osteotomy site

B Figure 8. pre -distraction

B). Van Gieson

A 1: Cross section of the experimental side of the mandibular ramus in

stage. Mid-ramus segment (A) and posterior ramus segment ((actual size). Sheep Gr5.

OS

Figure 8. 2: Osteotomy site (OS) was filled up with the red and white blood cells (arrows).



249

Group1, Immediate post distraction

Superior

Inferior


Periosteum underlines the loose screw site

A B

immediate post

Figure 8. 3: Cross section of the experimental side of the mandibular ramus

distraction. Mid-ramus segment (A) and posterior ramus segment (B). Van Gieson (actual size). Sheep Gr4.



250

roup1, Immediate post distraction (continued) G

Woven bone Cartilage formation

Artefact

A

B Figure 8. 4: Distraction gap, immediately post distraction. present of fibrous connective tissues

and chronic inflammatory cells (A). The giant cells, lymphocytes and plasma cells surrounding a bony sequestrum (B). H&E . Sheep Gr4.



251

Group1, Immediate post distraction (continued)

Superior


Distraction gap

A B

Figure 8. 5: Cross section of the experimental side of the mandibular ramus in immediate post

distraction. Mis-ramus segment (A) and posterior ramus segment (B). Van Gieson (actual size). Sheep Gr18.

Inferior



252

Cartilage formation

Figure 8. 6: Formation of the new bone tissues at the periphery of the gap and proliferation of cartilage between gap (A). The condrocytes and woven bone presence at the periphery of the distracted gap. H&E. Sheep Gr18.



253

Group1, Immediate post distraction (continued)

Superior

Lateral Medial

Posterior Anterior

Inferior

A B

Figure 8. 7: Cross section of the experimental side of the mandibular ramus in immediate post

distraction. Mid-ramus segment (A) and posterior ramus segment (B). Van Gieson (actual size). Sheep Gr34



254

roup 2a: Consolidation period 2 months

G

Superior

Figure 8. 8: Cross section of the experimental side of the mandibular ramus with consolidation 2 months. Mid-ramus segment (A) and posterior ramus segment (B). Van Gieson (actual size). Sheep Gr7.

Inferior

Medial Lateral Posterior Anterior

Previous screw defect

Incomplete bony union

Fibrous union within the

distracted gap




255

ontinued)

Group 2a: Consolidation period 2 months (c

Superior

Inferior

Cartilage formation

Figure 8. 9: Active fibroblast proliferation on the periphery of the distracted gap (arrow head) posterior segment. H&E. Sheep Gr7.



256

month later:

Group 2: Consolidation period 2 months and sacrifice 1

Superior

Posterior Anterior

A B

Figure 8. 10: Cross section of the experimental side of the mandibular ramus with consolidation 2 months and remodelling 1 month. Mid-ramus segment (A) and posterior ramus segment (B). Van Gieson (actual size). Sheep Gr6.

Inferior

Medial

Lateral Estimated distracted site



257

Group 2: Consolidation period 2 months and sacrifice 1 month later (continued)

P

M

Figure 8. 11: Formation of the woven bone at the periphery (arrow head), development of thick fibrous periosteum (P). Muscle (M) in posterior aspect of the posterior ramus.

H&E. Sheep Gr6.



258


Figure 8. 12: The posterior ramus showing the compact bone and mature Haversian system

with numerous reversal lines. H&E. Sheep Gr6.



259

Group 2: Consolidation period 2 months and sacrifice 1 month later (continued) Superior

A

Lateral Medial

Inferior

F

Figure 8. 13: Cross section of the experimental side of the mandibular ramus in (Group 2). Mid-ramus segment (A) (actual size), with thick periosteum (double headed arrows) and high magnification (B) with fibrous tissues formation (F). Van Gieson . Sheep Gr28.



260


Superior


Lateral Medial

Posterior Anterior

Estimated distracted site

Inferior

A B

Figure 8. 14: Cross section of the experimental side of the mandibular ramus with consolidation for 2 months and remodelling 1 month. Mid-ramus segment (A) and posterior segment (B). Van Gieson (actual size). Sheep Gr30.



261

Group 3: Consolidation period 3 months - Gr9, Gr25, Gr29, Gr27

Superior

Posterior Anterior

Lateral Medial

Estimated distracted site (within box)

Inferior

A B

Figure 8. 15: Cross section of the experimental side of the mandibular ramus with consolidation for 3 months. Mis- ramus segment (A) and posterior ramus segment (B). Van Gieson (actual size). Sheep Gr9.



262

Group 3: Consolidation period 3 months (continued)

P

CB

Figure 8. 16: The compact bone (CB) and periosteal layer (P) of the posterior side of the onths consolidation

period. H&E. Sheep Gr9.

posterior ramus of the distracted bone from sheep with 3 m



263

g period 1 month - Gr3, Gr24, Gr32, Gr27 Group 4: Consolidation period 3 months + remodellin

Superior


Lateral Medial

Figure 8. 17: Cross section of the experimental side of the mandibular ramus with consolidation

for 3 months and remodelling 1 month. Mid-ramus segment. Van Gieson (actual size). Sheep Gr3.

Inferior



264

Group 4: Consolidation period 3 months + remodelling period 1 month (continued)

Superior


D

A B

Figure 8. 18: Cmodelling for 1 month. Mid-ramus segment (A) and posterior

ramus segment (B).The defect caused by removal of screw (D). Van Gieson (actual size). Sheep Gr24)

Inferior

ross section of the experimental side of the mandibular ramus with consolidation for 3 months and re



265

Group 4: Consolidation period 3 months + remodelling period 1 month (continued)

Superior

Medial Lateral

Posterior Anterior

Estimated distracted site (within box)

A B ross section of the experimental side of the mandibular ramus with consolidation for 3 months and remodelli

Figure 8. 19: C

ng for 1 month. Mid-ramus segment (A) from Sheep Gr23 and posterior ramus segment (B) from Sheep Gr27. Van Gieson (actual size)

Inferior



266

6, Gr19, r21

Group 5: Consolidation period 3 months + remodelling period 2 months - Gr1, Gr1G

Superior Previous screw site

Medial Lateral


Posterior Anterior

Inferior

Figure 8. 20: Cross section of the experimental side of the mandibular ramus with 3 months consolidation period and 2 months remodelling. Mid-ramus segment (A) and posterior ramus segment (B). Van Gieson (actual size). Sheep Gr19.



267

6: Consolidation period 4 months - Gr8, Gr20, Gr22, Gr23

Group

Superior


F

FLateral Medial

Posterior Anterior

A B

Figure 8. 21: Cross section of the experimental side of the mandibular ramus with consolidation for 4 months. Mid-ramus segment (A) and posterior ramus segment (B). Fracture that caused by removal of the inferior screw (F). Van Gieson (actual size). Sheep Gr8.

Inferior



268

roup 6: Consolidation period 4 months (continued)

G

Figure 8. 22: The dense compact bone at high magnification frommandibular ramus of the animal with 4 months consolida

the middle istracted tion period, H&E. Sheep

d

Gr8.



269


Superior

Lateral Medial

Figure 8. 23: Cross section of the experimental side of the mandibular ramus with consolidation for 4 moths. Mid-ramus segment. Van Gieson (actual size). Sheep Gr20.

A B igure 8. 24: Cross section of the experimental side of the mandibular ramus with consolidation

for 4 months. Mid-ramus segment (A) and posterior ramus segment (B). Van Gieson (actual size). Sheep Gr22.

F

Inferior

Superior

Inferior

Medial

Lateral

Posterior Anterior

Estimated distracted site within the coloured box

Estimated distracted site within the colour box



270


Figure 8. 25: The lamellar bone at high magnification from the distracted mandibular ramus of the animal with 4 months consolidation period. H&E. Sheep Gr22.

posterior



271


Superior


Inferior

A B

Figure 8. 26: Cross section of the experimental side of the mandibular ramus with consolidation for 4 moths. Mid-ramus segment (A) and posterior ramus segment (B). Van

Gieson (actual size). Sheep Gr23.



272


Figure 8. 27: The thick periosteum (double headed arrows) at high magnification from the

posterior distracted mandibular ramus of the animal with 4 months consolidation period. H&E. Sheep Gr23.



273

APPENDIX 5

Repeatability coefficient for measurement for 4 planes a) Anterior plane (AB) Experimental side Control side Groups 1st 2nd df df² 1st 2nd df df² Group 1 Gr04 76 76.5 -0.5 0.25 73 73 0 0 Gr18 79 79 0 0 72 71.5 0.5 0.25 Gr34 61 60.5 0.5 0.25 60 60.5 -0.5 0..25 Group 2 Gr06 75 74.5 0.5 0.25 73 73.5 -0.5 0.25 Gr28 60 60.5 -0.5 0.25 65 65 0 0 Gr30 60 60.5 -0.5 0.25 72 72 0 0 Gr33 55 55 0 0 64 64 0 0 Group 3 Gr09 68 68.5 -0.5 0.25 82 82 0 0 Gr25 63 63.5 -0.5 0.25 72 72 0 0 Gr29 55 55.5 -0.5 0.25 70 70 0 0 Gr35 68 67.5 0.5 0.25 68 68 0 0

Gr03 Gr24 84 84 0 0

75 75 0 0 r32 71 71.5 -0.5 0.25 74 74 0 0

roup 5 r01 73 73.5 -0.5 0.25 77 77.5 -0.5 0.25 r16 78 78.5 -0.5 0.25 70 70 0 0 r19 78 78 0 0 75 75 0 0 r21 75 74.5 0.5 0.25 80 80 0 0

roup 6 r08 75 75.5 -0.5 0.25 85 85.5 -0.5 0.25 r20 60 61 -1 1 74 74.5 -0.5 0.25 r22 77 77.5 -0.5 0.25 80 80 0 0 r23 72 72 0 0 77 77 0 0

Group 4 75 75 0 0 75 75 0 0 76 75 1 1

63 63 0 0Gr27G GGGGG GGGGG



274

rimental side Control side 2nd df df² 1st 2nd df df²

8 98 0 0 98 98 0 0

83 83.5 -0.5 0.25 86 85 0 0

85 84.5 -0.5 0.25 95 95 0 0

95 95 0 0 108 108 0 0

78 78.5 -0.5 0.25 70 70 0 0

98 97.5 0.5 0.25 108 108 0 0

b) Middle plane (CD) Expe

roups 1st G Group 1

r04 81 81.5 -0.5 0.25 84 84.5 -0.5 0.25GGr18 9Gr34 80 80 0 0 93 93 0 0 Group 2

r06 86.5 86 0.5 0.25 88 88 0 0 GGr28 Gr30 85 85.5 -0.5 0.25 95 95 0 0 Gr33 75 75 0 0 97 97.5 -0.5 0.25 Group 3

r09 89 89.5 -0.5 0.25 96 96.5 -0.5 0.25 GGr25 Gr29 85 85 0 0 100 100 0 0 Gr35 90 90 0 0 92 92 0 0 Group 4

r03 98 98.5 -0.5 0.25 108 108.5 -0.5 0.25 GGr24 Gr27 97 97 0 0 105 105 0 0 Gr32 99 99.5 -0.5 0.25 108 108 0 0 Group 5

r01 73 73.5 -0.5 0.25 77 77.5 -0.5 0.25 GGr16 Gr19 78 78 0 0 75 75 0 0 Gr21 75 74.5 0.5 0.25 80 80 0 0 Group 6

r08 103 103 0 0 110 110 0 0 GGr20 Gr22 99 99.5 -0.5 0.25 110 110 0 0 Gr23 100 99.5 0.5 0.25 106 106 0 0



275

) Posterior plane (EF)

Experimental side Control side roups f f² st df²

roup 1 4 54 0 0 42 42 0 0

roup 2 49 49.5 -0.5 0.25 48 48 0 0

roup 3 47 47 0 0 42 42 0 0

roup 4 45 45.5 -0.5 0.25 46 46.55 -0.5 0.25

roup 5 40 40 0 0 40 40.5 -0.5 0.25

roup 6 39 39.5 -0.5 0.25 45 45 0 0

c G 1st 2nd d d 1 2nd df GGr04 5Gr18 48 48.5 -0.5 0.25 35 35.5 -0.5 0.25 Gr34 34 33.5 0.5 0.25 30 30 0 0 GGr06 Gr28 20 20.5 -0.5 0.25 23 23 0 0 Gr30 22 21.5 0.5 0.25 30 30 0 0 Gr33 27 26.5 0.5 0.25 35 35 0 0 GGr09 Gr25 37 37.5 -0.5 0.25 32 32 0 0 Gr29 30 30.5 -0.5 0.25 31 31 0 0 Gr35 31 30.5 0.5 0.25 31 31 0 0 GGr03 Gr24 33 32.5 0.5 0.25 49 49 0 0 Gr27 27 27 0 0 30 30 0 0 Gr32 36 36.5 -0.5 0.25 35 35 0 0 GGr01 Gr16 35 35.5 -0.5 0.25 39 39 0 0 Gr19 28 28.5 -0.5 0.25 32 32 0 0 Gr21 33 32 1 1 30 30 0 0 GGr08 Gr20 29 29.5 -0.5 0.25 40 40 0 0 Gr22 37 37 0 0 41 40.5 0.5 0.25 Gr23 32 32.5 -0.5 0.25 43 43.5 -0.5 0.25



276

f² 1st f

d) Oblique plane (AD) Experimental side Control side Groups 1st 2nd df d 2nd d df² Group 1 Gr04 80 80.5 -0.5 0.25 93 93 0 0 Gr18 95 95 0 0 97 98 -1 1 Gr34 78 78.5 -0.5 0.25 84 84 0 0 Group 2 Gr06 86.5 86.5 0 0 88 88 -0.5 0.25 Gr28 79 79 0 0 93 93 0 0 Gr30 77 77 0 0 95 95 0 0 Gr33 90 90.5 -0.5 0.25 91 91 0 0 Group 3 Gr09 95 95.5 -0.5 0.25 99 99.5 0 0 Gr25 79 79 0 0 93 93 0 0 Gr29 77 77 0 0 95 95 0 0 Gr35 90 90.5 -0.5 0.25 89 89 0 0 Group 4 Gr03 95 95.5 -0.5 0.25 108 108.5 -0.5 0.25 Gr24 93 93 0 0 102 102 0 0 Gr27 90 90 0 0 104 104 0 0 Gr32 90 90 0 0 101 101 0 0 Group 5 Gr01 104 104 0 0 103 103.5 -0.5 0.25 Gr16 94 94.5 -0.5 0.25 100 100 0 0 Gr19 97 97 0 0 100 100 0 0 Gr21 97 97 0 0 95 95 0 0 Group 6 Gr08 95 95.5 -0.5 0.25 101 101.5 -0.5 0.25 Gr20 95 95.5 -0.5 0.25 104 104.5 -0.5 0.25 Gr22 94 95 -1 1 106 106 0 0 Gr23 96 96 0 0 109 105.5 0.5 0.25



277

epeatability coefficient (RC

R ) for 4 planes:

C = / �df² 2n

tal site (right)

R

R � df = the different between the second and first n = The number of double measurement Anterior plane (AB) Experimen Control site (left) df²/2n C df²/2n RC 1) Group 1 = 0.083333 0.288675 0.083333 0.288675 2) Group 2 = 0.09375 0.306186 0.03125 0.176777 3) Group 3 = 0.125 0.353553 0 0 4) Group 4 = 0.1875 0.433013 0 0 5) Group 5 0.09375 = 0.306186 0.03125 0.176777 6) Group 6 = 0.1875 0.433013 0.0625 0.25 Middle plane CD) Experimental site (right) Control site (left) df²/2n RC df²/2n RC 1) Group 1 = 0.041667 0.204124 0.041667 0.204124 2) Group 2 = 0.09375 0.306186 0.03125 0.176777 3) Group 3 = 0.0625 0.25 0.03125 0.176777 4) Group 4 = 0.0625 0.25 0.03125 0.176777 5) Group 5 = 0.09375 0.306186 0 0 6) Group 6 = 0.03125 0.176777 0.03125 0.176777 Posterior plane (EF) Experimental site (right) Control site (left) df²/2n C df²/2n RC R

1) Group 1 = 0.083333 0.288675 0.041667 0.204124 2) Group 2 = 0.125 0.353553 0 0 3) Group 3 = 0.09375 0.306186 0 0 4) Group 4 = 0.09375 0.306186 0.03125 0.176777 5) Group 5 = 0.1875 0.433013 0.03125 0.176777 6) Group 6 = 0.09375 0.306186 0.0625 0.25 Oblique plane (AD) Experimental site (right) Control site (left)

df²/2n RC df²/2n RC ) Group 1 = 0.083333

1 0.288675 0.166667 0.408248 2) Group 2 = 0.0625 0.25 0 0 3) Group 3 = 0.0625 0.25 0.03125 0.176777 4) Group 4 = 0.03125 0.176777 0.03125 0.176777 5) Group 5 = 0.03125 0.176777 0.03125 0.176777 6) Group 6 = 0.1875 0.433013 0.09375 0.306186



278

APPENDIX 6

bility coefficient for cross se ion (cm²) of scans im ges

asseter mus proxima evel)

Experim tal side C ntrol side df² 1st 2 df df²

roup 1 5 4.6 4.7

r18 66 63 9 70 68 0.0 52 53 59 53 0

6.7 6.7 8.0 7.7 0.3 0.09 5.8 5.6 5.3 5.2 0 51 53 6.3 6 0 6.0 5.8 5.6 5.9 0.09

r09 5.9 6.2 .3 8 8 0 0 6.8 6.8 6 6 0 0 7 7.4 6.6 6 0 6.8 7.1 0 7.5 7.5 0

8.4 7.8 8.5 8.7 0r24 7.9 7.3 0.6 0.36 7.6 8.6 -1 1

6 7.4 7. 6.3 6.5 7.3 7.4

9.4 9.2 10.6 10.4 0.2 0.04 8 7.9 6.8 7 -0.3 0.09 6.5 6.5 6.8 7 0 7.5 7.9 6.6 6.7 0

roup 6 8.7 9.8 9.7

r20 7.9 8.4 0.5 5 8.1 8.3 0.0 7.5 7.7 7.5 8 0 8.3 8.4 0 7.8 8 -0.2 0.04

Repeata ct a a) The origin of M cle ( l l en oGroups 1st 2nd df nd

GGr04 4.7 0.3 0.09 -0.1 0.01 G 0.3 0.0 0.2 4 Gr34 -1 1 0.6 .36 Group 2 Gr06 0 0 Gr28 Gr30

0.2 -0.2

0.04 0.04

0.1 0.3

.01

.09 Gr33 0.2 0.04 0.3 Group 3 G -0 0.04 Gr25 0 0 Gr29 -0.4 0.16 .7 0 Gr35 -0.3 .09 0 Group 4 Gr03 0.6 0.36 -0.2 .04 G Gr27

r32 6.4 -0.4 0.16

0.2 4 5 -0.1 0.01

0.0G - 0.0 -0.1 1 Group 5 Gr01 0.2 0.04 Gr16 0.1 0.01 .1 Gr19 0 0 -0.2 .04 Gr21 -0.4 0.16 -0.1 .01 GGr08 8.5 0.2 0.04 0.1 0.01 G - 0.2 -0.2 4 Gr22 -0.2 0.04 -0.5 .25 Gr23 -0.1 .01



279

) The middle of Masseter muscle (middle level)

Experimental side Control side ² 1st 2nd df df²

r18 8.2 8.9 -0.7 0.49 6.3 6.3 0 0 .4 5.1 0.3 0.09 5.6 5.2 0.4 0.16

r28 4.8 5 -0.2 0.04 5.1 5 0.1 0.01 5.4 5.3 0.1 0.01 7 7.2 -0.2 0.04

r25 6.1 6 0.1 0.01 7.1 7.2 -0.1 0.01 8.1 7.7 0.4 0.16 8.4 8 0.4 0.16

r24 7 7.3 -0.3 0.09 7.7 7.1 0.6 0.36 7.1 6.8 0.3 0.09 8.4 8 0.4 0.16

6.8 7.1 -0.3 0.09 7.8 7.4 0.4 0.16

r20 8 8.3 -0.3 0.09 9.7 10.3 -0.6 0.36 8.6 8.3 0.3 0.09 7.4 7.6 -0.2 0.04

b Groups 1st 2nd df df Group 1

Gr04 5.6 5.5 0.1 0.01 5.4 6 -0.6 0.36GGr34 5 Group 2 Gr06 8.2 8.2 0 0 8.5 8.3 0.2 0.04 GGr30 Gr33 6.8 6.5 0.3 0.09 5.9 6.3 -0.4 0.16 Group 3 Gr09 8.6 8.3 0.3 0.09 9.5 9.4 0.1 0.01 GGr29 Gr35 9.4 9.3 0.1 0.01 7.9 7.5 0.4 0.16 Group 4 Gr03 7.6 8.3 -07 0.49 9.6 9.9 -0.3 0.09 GGr27 Gr32 6.6 7.1 -0.5 0.25 7.5 7.5 0 0 Group 5 Gr01 10.2 9.9 0.3 0.09 10.8 11.5 -0.7 0.49

r16 6.9 6.7 0.2 0.04 8.2 8 0.2 0.04 GGr19 Gr21 8.6 8.6 0 0 7 6.7 0.3 0.09 Group 6 Gr08 9.9 9.2 0.7 0.49 10 10.1 -0.1 00.01 GGr22 Gr23 8 8.7 -0.7 0.49 8.3 7.9 0.4 0.16



280

4

9

c) The insertion of Masseter muscle (distal level) Experimental side Control side

df² Groups 1st 2nd df df² 1st 2nd df Group 1 Gr04 2 2 0 0 3.3 3.3 0 0 Gr18 4.9 4.5 0.4 0.16 4.9 5.1 -0.2 0.0Gr34 2.8 2.7 0.1 0.01 3 2.8 0.2 0.04 Group 2 Gr06 5.8 6 -0.2 0.04 5.3 5.2 0.1 0.01 Gr28 2 2.5 -0.5 0.25 3.3 3.3 0 0 Gr30 2.4 2.2 0.2 0.04 3.9 4 -0.1 0.01 Gr33 2.7 2.8 -0.1 0.01 3.9 3.7 0.2 0.04 Group 3 Gr09 3 3.3 -0.3 0.09 4 3.9 0.1 0.01 Gr25 2.6 2.6 0 0 3.3 3.4 -0.1 0.01 Gr29 3.2 2.9 0.3 0.09 3.3 3.5 -0.2 0.04 Gr35 2.6 2.4 02 0.04 3.8 3.5 0.3 0.09 Group 4 Gr03 3 3.3 -0.3 0.09 4 3.9 0.1 0.01 Gr24 2.6 2.6 0 0 3.3 3.4 -0.1 0.01 Gr27 3.2 2.9 0.3 0.09 3.3 3.5 -0.2 0.04 Gr32 2.6 2.4 0.2 0.04 3.8 3.5 0.3 0.0 Group 5 Gr01 3 2.8 0.2 0.04 6.5 6.2 0.3 0.09 Gr16 2.2 3.6 -1.4 1.96 3.1 33 0.1 0.01 Gr19 2.7 2.7 0 0 4 4 0 0 Gr21 2.7 2.5 0.2 0.04 3.5 3.9 -0.4 0.16 Group 6 Gr08 3.6 3.7 -01 0.01 4.4 3.8 0.6 0.36 Gr20 3.6 3.6 0 0 4.4 4.5 -0.1 0.01 Gr22 3.4 3.3 0.1 0.01 4.8 4.3 0.5 0.25 Gr23 3.1 2.9 0.2 0.04 4.2 4.6 -0.4 0.16



281

epeatability coefficient

ction (cm²) Proximal

= 3

) Group 3 = 0.0425 0.206155 0.00125 0.035355 4 =

ti

=

) Group 3 = 0.03375 0.183712 0.0425 0.206155 4 = 0.115 0.339116 0.02 0.141421

ction (cm²) Distal

=

) Group 4 = 0.08625 0.293684 0.0275 0.165831 ) Group 5 = 0.255 0.504975 0.0325 0.187083 ) Group 6 = 0.0075 0.086603 0.0975 0.31225

R(RC) ME = / �df² � 2n df = the different between the second and first

umn = The n ber of double measurement

Cross se Experimental site (right) Control site (left) df²/2n RC df²/2n RC 1) Group 1 0.031667 0.177952 0.068 33 0.261406 2) Group 2 = 0.015 0.122474 0.035 0.187083 34) Group 0.115 0.339116 0.1325 0.364005 5) Group 5 = 0.02625 0.162019 0.0225 0.15 6) Group 6 = 0.0425 0.206155 0.0425 0.206155

ross sec on (cm²) Middle C Experimental site (right) Control site (left) df²/2n RC df²/2n RC 1) Group 1 0.098333 0.313581 0.086667 0.294393 2) Group 2 = 0.0175 0.132288 0.03125 0.176777 34) Group5) Group 5 = 0.0275 0.165831 0.0975 0.31225 6) Group 6 = 0.145 0.380789 0.07125 0.266927 Cross se Experimental site (right) Control site (left)

R df²/2n C df²/2n RC 1) Group 1 0.028333 0.168324 0.013333 0.115469 2) Group 2 = 0.0425 0.206155 0.0075 0.086603

) Group 3 = 0.0275 0.165831 0.01875 0.136931 3456



282

tability coefficient for thicknes cm) of sc ns image

seter mus proxima evel

Experim ntal side Control s 1st 2nd d df²

r04 1.4 1.6 - 0.04 1 1.1 - 0.01 .6 0 0 1.6 1.6 0 0

1.5 1.6 1

roup 2 2.1 2 1.8 1.9 2 1.8 1. 11.6 1. 1.3 2 1.9 1 1.5 1 .

r09 1.5 1.6 -0.1 0.01 1.8 1.8 -0.1 0.01 2 - 0.01 1.8 1.9 - 0.01

r29 1.8 2.2 -0.4 0.16 1.9 1.9 0 0 r35 1.6

2.1 1 1.8 1.8 1 1.8 2.1 2 2.1 22.1 2.3 -0 2 2.1 .

r01 2 1.9 0 0.01 2.1 2 0 0.01 r16 1.9 1.9 0 0 1.6 1.7 - 0.01

1.5 0 0 1.8 1.7 0 0.01 r21 1.6

2 1 1.9 .2.1 2. 2.2 2.2 2 2.1 .1.9 2 . 1.7 1 1

Repea s ( a s a) The origin of Mas cle ( l l e ide Groups 1st 2nd df df² f

roup 1 GGG

0.2 0.1r18 1.6 1

Gr34 1.5 1.6 -0.1 0.01 -0.1 0.0 GGr06 1.9 0. 0.04 1.8 0 0 Gr28 -0.1 0.01 7 0. 0.01 Gr30 6 0 0 1.4 -0.1 0.01 Gr33 0. 0.01 .6 -0 1 0.01 Group 3 G Gr25 1.9 0.1 0.1G G 1.8 -0.3 0.04 1.9 2.1 -0.2 0.04 Group 4 Gr03 2 0. 0.01 1.8 0 0 Gr24 .

.1 0 9 -0.1 0.01 2.1 -0.3 0.09

Gr27 0 .1 0 0 Gr32 .2 0.04 -0 1 0.01 Group 5 G .1 .1G 0.1Gr19 1.5 .1G 1.7 -0.1 0.01 1.4 1.6 -0.2 0.04 Group 6 Gr08 1.9 0. 0.01 2 -0 1 0.01 Gr20 1 0 0 2.2 0

20

Gr22 .2 0 .1

0 .2 -0 1 0.01 Gr23

-0 2 0.04 .6 0. 0.01



283

Control side roups 1 2 df df² 1st 2nd df df²

r04 1.7 1.8 -0.1 0.01 1.4 1.6 -0.2 0.04

1.9 2.4 -0.5 0.25 1.5 1.8 -0.3 0.09 1 1

r06 2.1 2.1 0 0 2.3 2.1 0.2 0.04 1.5 1.5 0 0 1.6 1.5 0.1 0.01

12 0

r09 2.6 2.4 0.2 0.04 2.1 2.2 -0.1 0.01 1.6 1.6 0 0 2 2.1 -0.1 0.01

22

r03 2 2 0 0 2.1 2.2 -0.1 0.01 1.7 2.2 -0.5 0.25 1.9 1.8 0.1 0.01

21

r01 2.3 2.1 0.2 0.04 1.8 2.1 -0.3 0.09 2 2.3 -0.3 0.09 2.1 2.2 -0.1 0.01

12 1

r08 1.9 1.8 0.1 0.01 2 2.3 -0.3 0.09 1.9 2.1 -0.2 0.04 2.3 2.5 -0.2 0.04

1 11 2

b) The middle of Masseter muscle (middle level) Experimental side

st ndG Group 1 GGr18 Gr34 .8 1.9 -01 0.01 2 .8 0.2 0.04 Group 2 GGr28 Gr30 .7 1.7 0 0 1.8 2 -0.2 0.04 Gr33 2 0 1.5 1.6 -0.1 0.01 Group 3 GGr25 Gr29 .3 2.1 0.2 0.04 2.1 2.1 0 0 Gr35 .3 2.2 0.1 0.01 1.9 1.9 0 0 Group 4 GGr24 Gr27 .4 2.4 0 0 2.2 2.3 -0.1 0.01 Gr32 .6 1.9 -0.3 0.09 2.5 2.3 0.2 0.04 Group 5 GGr16 Gr19 .7 1.8 -0.1 0.01 1.7 1.6 0.1 0.01 Gr21 .3 2.3 0 0 .7 1.8 -0.1 0.01 Group 6 GGr20 Gr22 .4 .5 -0.1 0.01 1.9 2 -0.1 0.01 Gr23 .8 1.9 -0.1 0.01 .2 2.3 -0.1 0.01



284

d 1st 2nd df df²

0 100 9

0 81

0 9

0 9

c) The insertion of Masseter muscle (distal level) Experimental side Control side Groups 1st 2nd df f² Group 1 Gr04 0.6 0.6 0 0 0.7 0.7 0 0 Gr18 1.1 1 0.1 0.01 1.1 1.3 -0.2 0.04 Gr34 0.7 0.7 0 0 0.8 0.8 0 0 Group 2 Gr06 1.4 1.4 0 1. 1.1 0 0 Gr28 0.7 0.8 -0.1 .01 1 0.9 0.1 0.01 Gr30 0.8 0.8 0 0. 0.9 0 0 Gr33 0.8 0.6 0.2 0.04 1 1 0 0 Group 3 Gr09 0.9 1.1 -0.2 0.04 0.9 0.9 0 0 Gr25 0.8 0.8 0 0. 0.8 0 0 Gr29 1 1 0 0 0.8 0.8 -0.1 0.0Gr35 0.7 0.6 0.1 0.01 0.9 0.9 0 0 Group 4 Gr03 1.1 1.1 0 0 0.9 0.9 0 0 Gr24 0.8 0.7 0.1 0.01 1.1 1 0.1 0.01 Gr27 0.8 0.8 0 0. 0.9 0 0 Gr32 0.8 0.7 0.1 0.01 0.7 0.8 -0.1 0.01 Group 5 Gr01 0.7 0.7 0 0 1.2 1.1 0.1 0.01 Gr16 0.9 0.9 0 0 0.8 0.8 0 0 Gr19 0.8 0.8 -0.1 0.01 1.1 1 0.1 0.01 Gr21 0.8 0.8 0 0. 0.8 0.1 0.01 Group 6 Gr08 0.9 1 -01 0.01 1 0.9 0.1 0.01 Gr20 1.1 1 0.1 0.01 0.9 1 -0.1 0.01 Gr22 0.9 0.9 0 0 1 1 0 0 Gr23 0.9 0.9 0 0 0.9 1.2 -0.3 0.09



285

RC)

� 2n

m

s (cm) Proximal

= ) Group 2 = 0.0075 0.086603 0.00375 0.061237

3 = 0.0275 0.165831 0.0075 0.086603

s (cm) Middle

=) Group 2 = 0 0 0.0125 0.111803

3 = 0.01125 0.106066 0.0025 0.05

ss (cm) Distal

) Group 4 = 0.0025 0.05 0.00375 0.061237 ) Group 5 = 0.00125 0.035355 0.00375 0.061237 ) Group 6 = 0.0025 0.05 0.01375 0.11726

Repeatability coefficient ( ME = / �df²

ond andf = the different between the sec d first n = The nu ber of double measurement

Thicknes Experimental site (right) Control site (left) df²/2n RC df²/2n RC 1) Group 1 0.008333 0.091285 0.003333 0.05773223) Group4) Group 4 = 0.0075 0.086603 0.0125 0.1118035) Group 5 = 0.0025 0.05 0.00875 0.093541 6) Group 6 = 0.00625 0.079057 0.00375 0.061237 Thicknes Experimental site (right) Control site (left) df²/2n RC df²/2n RC 1) Group 1 0.045 0.212132 0.028333 0.168324 23) Group4) Group 4 = 0.0425 0.206155 0.00875 0.093541 5) Group 5 = 0.0175 0.132288 0.015 0.1224746) Group 6 = 0.00875 0.093541 0.01875 0.136931 Thickne Experimental site (right) Control site (left)

df²/2n df²/2n RC RC 1) Group 1= 0.001667 0.040829 0.006667 0.081652

2 =2) Group 0.00625 0.079057 0.00125 0.035355 ) Group 3 = 0.00625 0.079057 0.00125 0.035355 3

456



286

APPENDIX 7

1: Immediate Post D traction (experimental side)

Atr Nec Pro l Reg

Group is

Sheep Dys Sc SITE 1st 2nd df 1st 2nd df 1st 2nd df 1st 2nd df t 2nd df 1st 2nd df 1sNo Masset Gr4 Prox 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Mid 3 3 2 2 1 1 1 1 3 1 1 3 Dis 0 1 0 1 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 Ptery Prox 1 1 0 0 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 Mid 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 0 * 0 1 1 0 Dis 1 1 0 0 0 1 1 1 1 0 0 0 Masset Gr18 Prox 0 0 3 3 2 2 1 1 1 1 2 3 * Mid 1 1 3 3 2 2 3 1 1 1 1 3 Dis 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 Ptery Prox 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 0 0 Mid 0 0 0 0 1 0 * 0 0 1 1 0 0 Dis 1 2 * 0 3 * 1 1 1 1 2 2 2 2 Masset Gr34 Prox 0 0 1 1 1 2 2 0 0 1 3 3 Mid 1 1 1 1 1 1 3 3 0 0 2 2 Dis 0 0 0 0 3 3 3 2 * 1 1 3 3 Ptery Prox 0 0 0 0 1 1 0 0 0 1 1 0 Mid 0 0 0 0 1 1 0 0 3 3 0 0 Dis 0 0 3 3 0 2 0 0 0 0 0 1 *



287

Group 1: Immediately Post Distraction (control side)

able 8.51: Histological score of the distracted muscle for immediate post distraction (Group 1), First (1st) and second (2nd) scoring.

umber of pair = 216 umber of different = 7

Scl Reg

Sheep Dys Atr Nec Pro SITE 1st 2nd df 1st 2nd df 1st 2nd df 1st 2nd df 1st 2nd df 1st 2nd df

No Masset Gr4 Prox 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Mid 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Dis 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Ptery Prox 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Mid 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Dis 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Masset Gr18 Prox 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Mid 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Dis 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Ptery Prox 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Mid 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Dis 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Masset Gr34 Prox 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Mid 0 0 0 0 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 Dis 0 0 0 0 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 Ptery

Prox 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Mid 0 0 0 0 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 Dis 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

T NN



288

onth (experimental side)

Group 2: Consolidation 2 months and remodelling 1 m

Sheep Dys Atr Nec Pro Scl Reg SITE 1st 2nd df 1st 2nd df 1st 2nd df 1st 2nd df 1st 2nd df 1st 2nd df No Masset Gr6 Prox 0 0 2 3 * 1 1 1 1 1 1 0 1 * Mid 0 0 3 3 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 * Dis 0 1 * 2 2 1 1 1 1 1 1 0 1 * Ptery Prox 0 1 * 1 1 0 0 0 1 * 1 1 1 1 Mid 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 0 0 Dis 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 * 0 0 Masset Gr28 Prox 3 3 3 3 1 1 3 3 3 3 2 2 Mid 3 3 2 3 * 0 0 3 3 3 3 1 1 Dis 3 3 3 3 0 0 3 3 3 3 2 1 * Ptery Prox 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Mid 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Dis 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Masset Gr30 Prox 1 1 1 1 0 0 1 1 1 1 0 0 Mid 3 3 3 3 0 0 3 3 3 3 1 1 Dis 3 2 * 3 2 * 1 1 3 3 3 3 2 2 Ptery Prox 0 2 * 1 2 * 0 0 1 1 1 1 1 1 Mid 0 1 1 1 0 0 1 1 1 1 0 0 Dis 0 1 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Masset Gr33 Prox 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Mid 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 1 1 0 0 Dis 1 3 * 3 3 0 0 1 2 * 2 3 * 1 0 * Ptery Prox 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 Mid 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 1 1 0 0 Dis 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0



289

roup 2: Consolidation 2 months and remodelling (control side) (continued)

heep Dys Atr Nec Pro Scl Reg

G S SITE 2nd df 2nd df 2nd df 2nd df 2nd df 2nd df 1st 1st 1st 1st 1st 1st No Masset Gr6 Prox 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Mid 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Dis 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Ptery Prox 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Mid 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Dis 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Masset Gr28 Prox 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Mid 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Dis 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Ptery Prox 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Mid 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Dis 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Masset Gr30 Prox 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Mid 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Dis 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Ptery Prox 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Mid 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Dis 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Masset Gr33 Prox 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Mid 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Dis 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Ptery Prox 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Mid 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Dis 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

Table 8.52: Histological score of the distracted muscle for consolidation 2 month and

remodelling 1 month (Group 2), First (1st) and second (2nd) scoring.


NN



290

Group 3: Consolidation 3 months (experimental side) Sheep Dys Atr Nec Pro Scl Reg SITE 1st 2nd df 1st 2nd df 1st 2nd df 1st 2nd df 1st 2nd df 1st 2nd df No Masset Gr9 Prox 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Mid 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 Dis 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 * Ptery Prox 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 Mid 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 Dis 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Masset Gr25 Prox 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Mid 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 * 2 2 0 0 Dis 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Ptery Prox 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Mid 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Dis 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Masset Gr29 Prox 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 0 0 Mid 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Dis 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Ptery Prox 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Mid 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Dis 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 2 * 0 0 Masset Gr35 Prox 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Mid 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Dis 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Ptery Prox 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Mid 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Dis 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0



291

Group 3: Consolidation 3 months (control side) Sheep Dys Atr Nec Pro Scl Reg SITE 1st 2nd df 1st 2nd df 1st 2nd df 1st 2nd df 1st 2nd df 1st 2nd df No Masset Gr9 Prox 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Mid 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Dis 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Ptery Prox 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Mid 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Dis 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Masset Gr25 Prox 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Mid 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Dis 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Ptery Prox 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Mid 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Dis 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Masset Gr29 Prox 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Mid 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Dis 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Ptery Prox 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Mid 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Dis 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Masset Gr35 Prox 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Mid 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Dis 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Ptery Prox 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Mid 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Dis 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

Table 8.53: Histological score of the distracted muscle for consolidation 3 months

(Group 3), First (1st) and second (2nd) scoring.


NN



292

g 1 month (experimental side)

p ys r cl g

Group 4: Consolidation 3 months and remodellin Shee D At Nec Pro S Re SITE 1st d d d d 2n df 1st 2n df 1st 2n df 1st 2nd df 1st 2n df 1st 2nd dfNo Masset Gr3 Prox 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Mid 0 1 * 2 3 * 0 0 2 2 3 3 1 1 Dis 2 2 3 3 0 0 2 3 * 3 3 0 0 Ptery Prox 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Mid 0 0 0 0 1 1 0 0 0 0 1 1 Dis 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Masset Gr24 Prox 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Mid 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 1 2 * 1 1 Dis 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 2 * 1 1 0 0 Ptery Prox 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Mid 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Dis 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Masset Gr27 Prox 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 Mid 0 0 0 0 1 1 0 0 0 0 1 1 Dis 2 2 2 3 * 1 1 2 3 * 3 3 2 2 Ptery Prox 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 * Mid 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 * Dis 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Masset Gr32 Prox 0 0 0 0 1 1 0 0 0 0 1 1 Mid 0 0 0 0 1 1 0 0 0 0 1 1 Dis 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 1 1 0 0 Ptery Prox 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 1 1 0 0 Mid 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

Dis 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0



293

able 8.54: Histological score of the distracted muscle for consolidation 3 months and remodelling 1 month (Group 4), First (1st) and second (2nd) scoring.


Dys Atr Nec Pro Scl Reg

Group 4: Consolidation 3 months and remodelling 1 month (control side)

Sheep SITE 1st 2nd df 2nd df 2nd df 2nd df 2nd df 2nd df 1st 1st 1st 1st 1st No Masset Gr3 Prox 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Mid 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Dis 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Ptery Prox 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Mid 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Dis 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Masset Gr24 Prox 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Mid 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Dis 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Ptery Prox 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Mid 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Dis 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Masset Gr27 Prox 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Mid 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Dis 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Ptery Prox 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Mid 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Dis 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Masset Gr32 Prox 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Mid 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Dis 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Ptery Prox 0 0

0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Mid 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Dis 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

T NN



294

side)

Group 5: Consolidation 3 months and remodelling 2 months (experimental

Sheep Dys Atr Nec Pro Scl Reg SITE 1st 2nd df 1st 2nd df 1st 2nd df 1st 2nd df 1st 2nd df 1st 2nd df No Masset Gr1 Prox 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Mid 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Dis 1 1 1 2 * 0 1 * 1 1 1 1 0 0 Ptery Prox 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 Mid 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 * Dis 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Masset Gr16 Prox 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Mid 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Dis 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 1 1 0 0 Ptery Prox 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Mid 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Dis 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Masset Gr19 Prox 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Mid 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Dis 2 3 * 3 3 0 0 2 2 2 3 * 0 0 Ptery Prox 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Mid 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Dis 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Masset Grr21 Prox 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Mid 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Dis 1 1 2 3 * 0 0 1 2 * 1 1 1 1 Ptery Prox 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Mid 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Dis 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0



295

able 8.55: Histological score of the distracted muscle for consolidation 3 months and remodelling 2 months (Group 5), First (1st) and second (2nd) scoring.


p ys r cl g

Group 5: Consolidation 3 months and remodelling 2 months (control side) Shee D At Nec Pro S Re SITE 1st d d d d 2n df 1st 2n df 1st 2n df 1st 2nd df 1st 2n df 1st 2nd dfNo Masset Gr1 Prox 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Mid 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Dis 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Ptery Prox 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Mid 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Dis 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Masset Gr16 Prox 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Mid 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Dis 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Ptery Prox 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Mid 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Dis 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Masset Gr19 Prox 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Mid 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Dis 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Ptery Prox 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Mid 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Dis 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Masset Gr21 Prox 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Mid 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Dis 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Ptery Prox 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Mid 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Dis 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

T NN



296

roup 6: Consolidation 4 months

heep Dys Atr Nec Pro Scl Reg

G

S SITE 1st 2nd df 1st 2nd df 1st 2nd df 1st 2nd df 1st 2nd df 1st 2nd df No Masset Gr8 Prox 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Mid 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Dis 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Ptery Prox 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Mid 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Dis 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Masset Gr20 Prox 3 2 * 3 3 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Mid 3 3 3 3 0 0 0 0 2 2 0 0 Dis 3 3 3 3 0 0 2 3 * 3 3 0 0 Ptery Prox 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Mid 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Dis 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Masset Gr22 Prox 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Mid 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Dis 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Ptery Prox 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Mid 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Dis 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Masset Gr23 Prox 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Mid 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Dis 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Ptery Prox 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Mid 0 0

0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Dis 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0



297

Group 6: Consolidation 4 months (control side) e distracted muscle for consolidation 4 months

(Group 6), First (1st) and second (2n


rand Total of Pairs = 1656 rand Total of different reading = 46 rand Total of same reading = 1610 1610 / 1656 X 100 = 97%

heep s c

Table 8.56: Histological score of th

d) scoring.

S Dy Atr Ne Pro Scl Reg SITE 1st 2nd df 1st 2nd df 1st 2nd df 1st 2nd df 1st 2nd df 1st 2nd df No Masset Gr8 Prox 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Mid 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Dis 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Ptery Prox 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Mid 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Dis 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Masset Gr20 Prox 3 2 * 3 3 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Mid 3 3 3 3 0 0 0 0 2 2 0 0 Dis 3 3 3 3 0 0 2 3 * 3 3 0 0 Ptery Prox 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Mid 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Dis 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Masset Gr22 Prox 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Mid 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Dis 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Ptery Prox 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Mid 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Dis 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Masset Gr23 Prox 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Mid 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Dis 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Ptery Prox 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Mid 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

Dis

N0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

N GGG�

the effect of vertical mandibular distraction …

Documents