Comparison of intraoral and extraoral approaches for placement of mandibular distractors in adolescents: anatomical, surgical, and aesthetic considerations

Relevance. Mandibular hypoplasia in adolescents poses significant functional and aesthetic challenges. Mandibular distraction osteogenesis (DO) enables gradual bone lengthening with new bone formation and remains an effective treatment modality with low relapse rates. However, the choice of surgical approach for distractor placement—intraoral versus extraoral–remains a subject of debate. Each approach entails distinct anatomical, surgical, and aesthetic considerations. The intraoral approach avoids visible scarring, which is especially important for adolescents, whereas the extraoral approach is technically straightforward in severe deformities and permits greater distraction length.

Objective. To compare intraoral and extraoral mandibular distraction in adolescents by analyzing anatomical landmarks, surgical techniques, complication rates, and aesthetic out-comes, and to develop clinical recommendations for selecting the optimal approach.

Materials and methods. A literature review was conducted using relevant sources from the PubMed, Scopus, Web of Science, and Google Scholar databases published within the past 10 years, focusing on mandibular distraction osteogenesis in children and adolescents. The following key parameters were compared: surgical approach, distraction vector and magnitude, treatment duration, complication rates, and aesthetic outcomes. Two summary tables are presented: (1) a comparative analysis of intraoral and extraoral approaches, and (2) an overview of distraction protocols and outcomes reported in various studies.

Results. Intraoral distractors are placed through an intraoral incision and typically feature curvilinear activation, allowing simultaneous vertical and horizontal mandibular lengthening with concealed hardware and no visible external scars. This approach is associated with fewer postoperative complications (~10% vs. 30–40%) and infrequent neurosensory disturbances, although it generally achieves a slightly smaller mean elongation (approximately 10–15 mm) compared to extraoral systems. Extraoral distractors require a submandibular incision and external activation units, enabling greater distraction length (~15–20 mm or more) and precise vector control. However, they are associated with higher risks of hypertrophic scarring, pin-site infections, and transient facial nerve paresis. Adolescent patients tend to tolerate intraoral distractors better due to improved comfort and aesthetics. Recent studies have shown no significant differences in treatment success or airway improvement between approaches when distraction parameters remain within device capabilities; however, intraoral systems demonstrate higher reliability (fewer mechanical failures) and a lower overall scar burden.

Conclusion. Mandibular distraction osteogenesis is a reliable treatment modality for mandibular hypoplasia in children and adolescents with incomplete facial skeletal growth. The intraoral approach is preferable for moderate deformities, providing superior aesthetic outcomes and fewer complications. The extraoral approach remains justified for severe deficiencies requiring maximal elongation or complex vector adjustment, particularly in cases with limited mouth opening. Clinical recommendations are proposed to individualize surgical access selection based on deformity severity, anatomical constraints, and aesthetic considerations.

1. Master DL, Hanson PR, Gosain AK. Complications of mandibular distraction osteogenesis. J Craniofac Surg. 2010;21(5):1565-70. https://doi.org/10.1097/scs.0b013e3181ecc6e5

2. Rachmiel A, Aizenbud D, Eleftheriou S, Peled M, Laufer D. Extraoral vs. intraoral distraction osteogenesis in the treatment of hemifacial microsomia. Ann Plast Surg. 45(4):386-94. https://doi.org/10.1097/00000637-200045040-00006

3. Fedotov RN, Topolnitskiy OZ, Shuba MI, Yakovlev SV, Zangieva OT, Epifanov SA. Orthognathic surgery, distraction osteogenesis and digital planning in patients with bilateral cleft lip and palate. Bulletin of Pirogov National Medical & Surgical Center. 2021;16(4):88–93 (In Russ.). https://doi.org/10.25881/20728255_2021_16_4_88

4. Cope JB, Samchukov ML, Cherkashin AM. Mandibular distraction osteogenesis: a historic perspective and future directions. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop. 1999;115(4):448-460. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0889-5406(99)70266-0

5. Chocron Y, Barone N, Zammit D, Gilardino MS. Efficacy and Complications of Mandibular Distraction Osteogenesis for Airway Obstruction in the Robin Sequence Population: A Comprehensive Literature Review. J Craniofac Surg. 2022;33(6):1739-1744. https://doi.org/10.1097/scs.0000000000008611

6. Disler ER, Hassanzadeh T, Vecchiotti MA, Marston AP, Scott AR. Complications of Pediatric Mandibular Distraction Osteogenesis: A Comparison of Internal and External Devices. Facial Plast Surg Aesthet Med. 2025;27(1):44-46. https://doi.org/10.1089/fpsam.2024.0128

7. Breik O, Tivey D, Umapathysivam K, Anderson P. Does the Rate of Distraction or Type of Distractor Affect the Outcome of Mandibular Distraction in Children With Micrognathia? J Oral Maxillofac Surg. 2016;74(7):1441-53. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.joms.2016.01.049

8. Paes EC, Bittermann GKP, Bittermann D, Muradin MM, van Hogezand R, Etty E, et al. Long-Term Results of Mandibular Distraction Osteogenesis with a Resorbable Device in Infants with Robin Sequence: Effects on Developing Molars and Mandibular Growth. Plast Reconstr Surg. 2016 Feb;137(2):375e-385e. https://doi.org/10.1097/01.prs.0000475769.06773.86

9. Steinberg JP, Brady CM, Waters BR, Soldanska M, Burstein FD, Thomas JE, Williams JK. Mid-Term Dental and Nerve-Related Complications of Infant Distraction for Robin Sequence. Plast Reconstr Surg. 2016;138(1):82e-90e. https://doi.org/10.1097/prs.0000000000002271

10. Ramirez-Garcia R, Humphries LS, Reid RR. Alternative Factors Associated With Failure of Mandibular Distraction Osteogenesis. FACE. 2020;1(1):51-57. https://doi.org/10.1177/2732501620949197

11. Mao Z, Zhang N, Shu L, Cui Y. Imaging characteristics of the mandible and upper airway in children with Robin sequence and relationship to the treatment strategy. Int J Oral Maxillofac Surg. 2020;49(9):1122-1127. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijom.2020.02.005

12. Tahiri Y, Greathouse ST, Tholpady SS, Havlik R, Sood R, Flores RL. Mandibular Distraction Osteogenesis in Low-Weight Neonates with Robin Sequence: Is It Safe? Plast Reconstr Surg. 2015;136(5):1037-1044. https://doi.org/10.1097/prs.0000000000001710

13. Rachmiel A, D Aizenbud, S Eleftheriou, M Peled, D Laufer. Extraoral vs. intraoral distraction osteogenesis in the treatment of hemifacial microsomia. Ann Plast Surg. 2000;45(4):386-94. https://doi.org/10.1097/00000637-200045040-00006

14. Rachmiel A, Manor R, Peled M, Laufer D. Intraoral distraction osteogenesis of the mandible in hemifacial microsomia. J Oral Maxillofac Surg. 2001;59(7):728-733. https://doi.org/10.1053/joms.2001.24280

15. Lin SJ, Roy S, Patel PK. Distraction osteogenesis in the pediatric population. Otolaryngol Head Neck Surg. 2007;137(2):233-238. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.otohns.2007.03.035

16. Rachmiel A, Shilo D, Hija A, Capucha T, Zeineh N, Emodi O, Krasovsky A. Using in-house 3D technology for optimal spatial positioning of elongation devices for distraction osteogenesis-a cost-effective alternative. Front Oral Health. 2025;6:1514050 https://doi.org/10.3389/froh.2025.1514050

17. Verlinden CR, van de Vijfeijken SE, Jansma EP, Becking AG, Swennen GR. Complications of mandibular distraction osteogenesis for congenital deformities: a systematic review of the literature and proposal of a new classification for complications. Int J Oral Maxillofac Surg. 2015;44(1):37-43. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijom.2014.07.009

18. Breik O, Umapathysivam K, Tivey D, Anderson P. Feeding and reflux in children after mandibular distraction osteogenesis for micrognathia: A systematic review. Int J Pediatr Otorhinolaryngol. 2016;85:128-35. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijporl.2016.03.033

19. Kosyk MS, Salinero LK, Morales CZ, Shakir S, Cielo CM, Scott M, et al. Comprehensive Long-Term Outcomes Following Mandibular Distraction Osteogenesis. Cleft Palate Craniofac J. 2025;Jan;62(1):108-116. https://doi.org/10.1177/10556656231206884

20. Thom DH, Lam VN, Son TT. The Outcome of Mandibular Distraction Osteogenesis in Infants with Severe Pierre Robin Sequence in Vietnam. Kobe J Med Sci. 2023;69(3):E115-E121. https://doi.org/10.24546/0100485260

21. Kosyk MS, Carlson AR, Zapatero ZD, Kalmar CL, Cielo CM, Lioy J, et al. Mandibular Distraction Osteogenesis for Tongue-Based Airway Obstruction Without Micrognathia. Ann Plast Surg. 2022 ;88(1):54-58. https://doi.org/10.1097/sap.0000000000002891

22. Taufique Z, Ebert B, Smith EC, Zavala H, Scott AR, Roby BB. The Safety and Efficacy of Mandibular Distraction Osteogenesis Among Infants Less Than 3 kg. Laryngoscope. 2022;132(6):1295-1299. https://doi.org/10.1002/lary.29877

23. McGhee H, Gehle D, Shope C, Wen CC, Marston AP, Discolo C, Pecha PP. Feeding Performance and Outcomes in Infants With Robin Sequence Undergoing Mandibular Distraction Osteogenesis. Cleft Palate Craniofac J. 2024;61(2):295-301. https://doi.org/10.1177/10556656221127542

24. Mace EL, Krishnapura SG, Golinko M, Phillips JD, Belcher RH. Pre-Operative Characteristics Helping to Avoid Gastrostomy Tube After Mandibular Distraction in Neonates With Pierre-Robin Sequence: A Institutional Case-Series and Review of the Literature. Ann Otol Rhinol Laryngol. 2024;133(7):679-685. https://doi.org/10.1177/00034894241249547

25. Govaerts D, Kalantary S, Van de Casteele E, Nadjmi N. Mandibular distraction osteogenesis in children with Pierre Robin sequence: long-term analysis of teeth and jaw growth. Br J Oral Maxillofac Surg. 2024;62(6):551-558. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.bjoms.2024.04.008

26. Hammoudeh JA, Fahradyan A, Brady C, Tsuha M, Azadgoli B, Ward S, Urata MM. Predictors of Failure in Infant Mandibular Distraction Osteogenesis. J Oral Maxillofac Surg. 2018;76(9):1955-1965. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.joms.2018.03.008

27. Breik O, Tivey D, Umapathysivam K, Anderson P. Mandibular distraction osteogenesis for the management of upper airway obstruction in children with micrognathia: a systematic review. Int J Oral Maxillofac Surg. 2016;45(6):769-782. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijom.2016.01.009

28. Tholpady SS, Costa M, Hadad I, Havlik RJ, Socas J, Matt BH, Flores RL. Mandibular distraction for Robin sequence associated with laryngomalacia. J Craniofac Surg. 2015;26(3):826-830. https://doi.org/10.1097/scs.0000000000001546

29. Almajed A, Viezel-Mathieu A, Gilardino MS, Flores RL, Tholpady SS, Côté A. Outcome Following Surgical Interventions for Micrognathia in Infants With Pierre Robin Sequence: A Systematic Review of the Literature. Cleft Palate Craniofac J. 2017;54(1):32-42. https://doi.org/10.1597/15-282

30. Hong P, Graham E, Belyea J, Taylor S, Kearns D, Bezuhly M. The Long-Term Effects of Mandibular Distraction Osteogenesis on Developing Deciduous Molar Teeth. Plastic Surgery International. 2012:1-5. https://doi.org/10.1155/2012/913807