Impact of a new combined preoperative cleft assessment on dental implant success in patients with cleft and palate: a retrospective study.
Alveolar cleft score
Cleft lip
Cleft palate
Dental implant
Interdental alveolar bone height
Patient compliance
Patient satisfaction
Journal
BMC oral health
ISSN: 1472-6831
Titre abrégé: BMC Oral Health
Pays: England
ID NLM: 101088684
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
15 03 2022
15 03 2022
Historique:
received:
08
06
2021
accepted:
30
11
2021
entrez:
16
3
2022
pubmed:
17
3
2022
medline:
24
3
2022
Statut:
epublish
Résumé
Bone height assessment alone is frequently used to guide rehabilitation choice, without consideration for soft tissues or adjacent teeth. This study aimed to evaluate the impact of different preoperative cleft assessments on implant success and patient satisfaction. The study involved a retrospective assessment of records from 40 patients with cleft lip and palate (CLP). The alveolar cleft score (ACS; clinical criteria), interdental alveolar bone height (IABH) score (radiological criteria), patient compliance score (dental hygiene, medical visit observance, and smoking), and a novel combined score (IABH-ACS-Compliance) were assessed from patient records. Patients who required prosthetic tooth rehabilitation in the cleft dental arch space were included. Twenty-six patients (Group 1) were treated with dental implants, and 14 patients (Group 2) selected another prosthetic option (fixed prosthodontics, removal prosthesis), orthodontic space closure, or no rehabilitation. The main outcomes measured were relative implant success (no implant loss involving marginal bone loss ≤ 1.9 mm) for patients treated with dental implant therapy (Group 1) and patient satisfaction for all patients (Groups 1 and 2). Forty dental implants were placed in the patients in Group 1. Four implants in four patients (Group 1 relative failure, RF) were lost (implant survival rate of 90%) after 36 (± 12.4) months of follow-up. Twenty-two patients who received implants belonged to the relative implant success group (Group 1 RS). The average "IABH-ACS-Compliance" scores were significantly different (p < 0.05): 16.90 ± 2.35 and 12.75 ± 0.43 for the Group 1 RS and RF groups, respectively. Preoperative cleft parameters have an impact on relative implant success and patient satisfaction. The new cleft assessment combined-score ("IABH-ACS-Compliance") allows an accurate selection of cleft cases eligible for dental implants, thereby improving postoperative outcomes.
Sections du résumé
BACKGROUND
Bone height assessment alone is frequently used to guide rehabilitation choice, without consideration for soft tissues or adjacent teeth. This study aimed to evaluate the impact of different preoperative cleft assessments on implant success and patient satisfaction.
METHODS
The study involved a retrospective assessment of records from 40 patients with cleft lip and palate (CLP). The alveolar cleft score (ACS; clinical criteria), interdental alveolar bone height (IABH) score (radiological criteria), patient compliance score (dental hygiene, medical visit observance, and smoking), and a novel combined score (IABH-ACS-Compliance) were assessed from patient records. Patients who required prosthetic tooth rehabilitation in the cleft dental arch space were included. Twenty-six patients (Group 1) were treated with dental implants, and 14 patients (Group 2) selected another prosthetic option (fixed prosthodontics, removal prosthesis), orthodontic space closure, or no rehabilitation. The main outcomes measured were relative implant success (no implant loss involving marginal bone loss ≤ 1.9 mm) for patients treated with dental implant therapy (Group 1) and patient satisfaction for all patients (Groups 1 and 2).
RESULTS
Forty dental implants were placed in the patients in Group 1. Four implants in four patients (Group 1 relative failure, RF) were lost (implant survival rate of 90%) after 36 (± 12.4) months of follow-up. Twenty-two patients who received implants belonged to the relative implant success group (Group 1 RS). The average "IABH-ACS-Compliance" scores were significantly different (p < 0.05): 16.90 ± 2.35 and 12.75 ± 0.43 for the Group 1 RS and RF groups, respectively.
CONCLUSIONS
Preoperative cleft parameters have an impact on relative implant success and patient satisfaction. The new cleft assessment combined-score ("IABH-ACS-Compliance") allows an accurate selection of cleft cases eligible for dental implants, thereby improving postoperative outcomes.
Identifiants
pubmed: 35291983
doi: 10.1186/s12903-022-02040-5
pii: 10.1186/s12903-022-02040-5
pmc: PMC8925145
doi:
Substances chimiques
Dental Implants
0
Types de publication
Journal Article
Langues
eng
Sous-ensembles de citation
IM
Pagination
73Informations de copyright
© 2022. The Author(s).
Références
Rev Stomatol Chir Maxillofac Chir Orale. 2015 Jun;116(3):132-8
pubmed: 25841268
Cleft Palate Craniofac J. 2003 Jul;40(4):343-50
pubmed: 12846599
J Craniomaxillofac Surg. 1999 Dec;27(6):354-7
pubmed: 10870753
Cleft Palate Craniofac J. 2002 Jan;39(1):18-25
pubmed: 11772165
Clin Oral Investig. 2018 Mar;22(2):689-695
pubmed: 28589475
Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants. 2014 Sep-Oct;29(5):1098-105
pubmed: 25216135
Cleft Palate Craniofac J. 2009 Mar;46(2):166-72
pubmed: 19254064
Int J Oral Maxillofac Surg. 2005 Oct;34(7):715-21
pubmed: 16157247
J Craniomaxillofac Surg. 2001 Jun;29(3):131-40; discussion 141-2
pubmed: 11465251
Cleft Palate Craniofac J. 2010 Nov;47(6):591-6
pubmed: 21039278
Oral Maxillofac Surg Clin North Am. 2019 May;31(2):207-217
pubmed: 30947847
Int J Oral Maxillofac Surg. 2016 Feb;45(2):205-15
pubmed: 26385308
J Craniomaxillofac Surg. 1995 Dec;23(6):382-6
pubmed: 8839333
J Oral Maxillofac Surg. 1997 Jun;55(6):576-83; discussion 584
pubmed: 9191639
Cleft Palate Craniofac J. 2010 May;47(3):247-52
pubmed: 20426674
Int Orthod. 2014 Sep;12(3):303-44
pubmed: 25127753
Cleft Palate Craniofac J. 2008 Sep;45(5):473-6
pubmed: 18788864
Clin Oral Implants Res. 2004 Oct;15(5):616-24
pubmed: 15355405
J Int Soc Prev Community Dent. 2015 Nov-Dec;5(6):482-7
pubmed: 26759802
Clin Oral Implants Res. 2005 Dec;16(6):645-9
pubmed: 16307570
Ann Maxillofac Surg. 2015 Jan-Jun;5(1):108-11
pubmed: 26389047
Int J Prosthodont. 2019 Jan/Feb;32(1):32-35
pubmed: 30677110
Cleft Palate Craniofac J. 1991 Jul;28(3):301-3; discussion 304
pubmed: 1911819
Implant Dent. 2008 Mar;17(1):5-15
pubmed: 18332753
Cleft Palate J. 1986 Jul;23(3):175-205
pubmed: 3524905
Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants. 1986 Summer;1(1):11-25
pubmed: 3527955
J Craniomaxillofac Surg. 2004 Aug;32(4):211-5
pubmed: 15262250
Scand J Plast Reconstr Surg. 1981;15(2):127-40
pubmed: 7041248
J Prosthet Dent. 2014 Aug;112(2):117-21
pubmed: 24529657
J Periodontol. 2000 Apr;71(4):546-9
pubmed: 10807116
Oral Surg Oral Med Oral Pathol Oral Radiol Endod. 2008 Mar;105(3):297-302
pubmed: 18280962
Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop. 2018 Jun;153(6):883-894
pubmed: 29853246
Cleft Palate Craniofac J. 1997 Nov;34(6):520-5
pubmed: 9431470
Int J Oral Surg. 1981 Dec;10(6):387-416
pubmed: 6809663
Int J Oral Maxillofac Surg. 2020 Jul;49(7):952-959
pubmed: 32098700
Int J Oral Maxillofac Surg. 2019 Aug;48(8):1109-1114
pubmed: 30773334
Cleft Palate Craniofac J. 2012 Sep;49(5):601-8
pubmed: 21740181
Clin Oral Implants Res. 2015 Apr;26(4):e28-e34
pubmed: 24383987
Cleft Palate Craniofac J. 2010 Nov;47(6):586-90
pubmed: 20500069
J Clin Periodontol. 2006 Apr;33(4):290-5
pubmed: 16553638
J Craniomaxillofac Surg. 2006 Sep;34 Suppl 2:31-3
pubmed: 17071388
Lancet. 2009 Nov 21;374(9703):1773-85
pubmed: 19747722
Cleft Palate Craniofac J. 2007 Jul;44(4):444-7
pubmed: 17608551
J Dent Res. 2012 Mar;91(3):242-8
pubmed: 22157097