A 3-Dimensional Evaluation of Bone Density in Alveolar Cleft Grafting Methods: Bone Substitutes Versus Autologous Bone.
Journal
The Journal of craniofacial surgery
ISSN: 1536-3732
Titre abrégé: J Craniofac Surg
Pays: United States
ID NLM: 9010410
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
01 Oct 2022
01 Oct 2022
Historique:
received:
17
12
2021
accepted:
13
04
2022
pubmed:
15
9
2022
medline:
12
10
2022
entrez:
14
9
2022
Statut:
ppublish
Résumé
Secondary alveolar cleft repair using autologous bone graft is currently the gold standard in treating residual alveolar clefts. Despite its effectiveness, this technique is still burdened by several withdrawals, mostly related to donor site morbidity. To decrease disadvantages for patients, numerous attempts in the literature regarding bone substitutes have been described. The aim of this study is to compare the viability of bovine-based replacement bone material with respect of autologous bone graft in alveolar cleft reconstruction, through 3-dimensional alveolar cleft segmentation and bone density evaluation from preoperative and postoperative cone-beam computed tomography. A retrospective cohort study of 10 patients who underwent surgical procedure for alveolar cleft grafting at Sant'Orsola Malpighi University Hospital of Bologna from December 2012 to December 2016 was undertaken. Five patients received autologous bone graft and 5 a bovine bone substitute graft. Preoperative and immediate postoperative orthopanoramic x-rays were recorded. Cone-beam computed tomography scans have recorded both pre and postoperatively. Volumetric evaluation on 3-dimensional cone-beam computed tomography images was performed. Alveolar clefts repaired using substitute bovine bone/biological membrane scaffold had a mean fill of 69.00% of total cleft volume, while this figure was of 67.07% with autologous bone grafting. The immediate postoperative course and subsequent discharge were uneventful for both groups, with a difference in timing. The cost of substitute bovine bone was offset by cost savings associated with a reduction in operative and postoperative and hospitalization time. Bone substitutes showed to be a promising solution in alveolar cleft grafting.
Identifiants
pubmed: 36100974
doi: 10.1097/SCS.0000000000008773
pii: 00001665-202210000-00053
doi:
Substances chimiques
Bone Substitutes
0
Types de publication
Journal Article
Langues
eng
Pagination
2188-2194Informations de copyright
Copyright © 2022 by Mutaz B. Habal, MD.
Déclaration de conflit d'intérêts
The authors report no conflicts of interest.
Références
Sakamoto Y, Sakamoto T, Kishi K. Asessment of bioadsorbable hydroxyapatite for secondary bone grafting in unilateral alveolar clefts. Cleft Palate Craniofac J 2019;18:1–4
Bergland O, Semb G, Abyholm F. Elimination of the residual alveolar clefts by secondary bone grafting and subsequent orthodontic treatment. Cleft Palate J 1986;23:175–205
Alonso N, Tanikawa DY, Freitas Rda S, et al. Evaluation of maxillary alveolar reconstruction using a resorbable collagen sponge with recombinant human bone morphogenetic protein-2 in cleft lip and palate patients. Tissue Eng Part C Methods 2010;16:1183–1189
Brusati R, Mannucci N. The early gingivoalveoloplasty: preliminary results. Scand J Plast Reconstr Surg Hand Surg 1992;26:65–70
Boyne PJ, Sands NR. Secondary bone grafting of residual alveolar and palatal clefts. J Oral Surg 1972;30:87–92
Meazzini MC, Tortora C, Morabito A, et al. Alveolar bone formation in patients with unilateral and bilateral cleft lip and palate after early gingivoperiosteoplasty: long term results. Plast Reconstr Surg 2007;119:1527–1537
Meazzini MC, Rossetti G, Morabito A, et al. Photometric evaluation of bilateral cleft lip and palate patients after primary columella lengthening. Cleft Palate Craniofac J 2010;47:58–65
Brusati R. Evolution of my philosophy in treatment of unilateral cleft lip and palate. J Craniomaxillofac Surg 2016;44:901–911
Rosenstein S. The case for early bone grafting in cleft lip and palate: a second report. Plast Reconstr Surg 1991;87:644–654
Daw JL Jr, Patel PK. Management of alveolar clefts. Clin Plast Surg 2004;31:303–313
Da Silva Filho OG. Secondary bone graft and eruption of the permanent canine in patients with alveolar clefts: literature review and case report. Angle Orthod 2000;70:175–178
Brudnicki A, Fudalej PS. Effects of different timing of alveolar bone graft on craniofacial morphology in unilateral cleft lip and palate. Cleft Palate J 2019;18:1–90
Bajaj AK, Wongworawat AA, Punjabi A. Management of alveolar clefts. J Craniofac Surg 2003;14:840–846
Oliver O, Aalami MD, Randall P, et al. Applications of a mouse model of calvarial healing: differences in regenerative abilities of juveniles and adults. Plast Reconstr Surg 2004;114:713–720
Sharif F, UrRehman I, Muhammad N, et al. Dental materials for cleft palate repair. Mater Sci Eng C Mater Biol Appl 2016;61:1018–1028
Canady JW, Zeitler DP, Thompson SA, et al. Suitability of the iliac crest as a site for harvest of autogenous bone grafts. Cleft Palate Craniofac J 1993;30:579–581
Corre P, Khonsari RH, Laure B, et al. Synthetic calcium phosphate ceramics in secondary alveoloplasty. Rev Stomatol Chir Maxillofac 2012;113:131–135
Francis C, Mobin Nazarian S, Lypka MA, et al. rhBMP-2 with a demineralized bone matrix scaffold versus autologous iliac crest bone graft for alveolar cleft reconstruction. Plast Reconstr Surg 2013;131:1107–1115
Takemaru M, Sakamoto Y, Sakamoto T, et al. Assessment of bioabsorbable hydroxyapatite for secondary bone grafting in unilateral alveolar cleft. J Plast Reconstr Aesthet Surg 2016;69:493–496
Totu EE, Cristache CM, Buga R, et al. A card double face: compounds’ functionality and synergy of a topical treatment proposed for oral health improvement in periodontal disease. Rev Chim 2019;70:1551–1557
Wu C, Pan W, Feng C, et al. Grafting materials for alveolar cleft reconstruction: a systematic review and best-evidence synthesis. Int J Oral Maxillofac Surg 2018;48:345–356
Oberoi S, Chigurupati R, Gill P, et al. Volumetric assessment of secondary alveolar bone grafting using cone beam computed tomography. Cleft Palate Craniofac J 2009;46:503–511
Scheerlinck LME, Muradin MSM, van der Bilt A, et al. Donor site complications in bone grafting: comparison of iliac crest, calvarial, and mandibular ramus bone. Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants 2013;28:222–227
Laurie SW, Kaban LB, Mulliken JB, et al. Donor-site morbidity after harvesting rib and iliac bone. Plast Reconstr Surg 1984;73:933–938
Dickinson BP, Ashley RK, Wasson KL. Reduced morbidity and improved healing with bone morphogenic protein-2 in older patients with alveolar cleft defects. Plast Reconstr Surg 2008;121:209–217
Benlidayi ME, Tatli U, Kurkcu M, et al. Comparison of bovine-derived hydroxyapatite and autogenous bone for secondary alveolar bone grafting in patients with alveolar clefts. J Oral Maxillofac Surg 2012;70:95–102
Thuaksuban N, Nuntanaranont T, Pripatnanont P. A comparison of autogenous bone graft combined with deproteinized bovine bone and autogenous bone graft alone for treatment of alveolar cleft. Int J Oral Maxillofac Surg 2010;39:1175–1180
Sartori S, Silvestri M, Forni F. Ten-year follow-up in a maxillary sinus augmentation using inorganic bovine bone (Bio-Oss). A case report with histomorphometric evaluation. Clin Oral Implants Res 2003;14:369–372
Neovius E, Lemberger M, Docherty Skogh AC, et al. Alveolar bone healing accompanied by severe swelling in cleft children treated with bone morphogenetic protein-2 delivered by hydrogel. J Plast Reconstr Aesthet Surg 2013;66:37–42
Lopez CD, Coelho PG, Witek L, et al. Regeneration of a pediatric alveolar cleft model using three-dimensionally printed bioceramic scaffolds and osteogenic agents: comparison of dipyridamole and rhBMP-2. Plast Reconstr Surg 2019;144:358–370
Blatter J, May L, Be Buys Roessingh A, et al. The mandibular ramus: an alternative donor site for secondary alveolar bone grafting in clefts of the alveolus. J Craniofac Surg 2019;30:2590–2592
Sakkas A, Ioannis K, Winter K, et al. Clinical results of autologous bone augmentation harvested from the mandibular ramus prior to implant placement. An analysis of 104 cases. GMS Interdiscip Plast Reconstr Surg DGPW 2016;5:Doc21; eCollection 2016.
Freihofer HP, Borstlap WA, Kuijpers-Jagtman AM, et al. Timing and transplant materials for closure of alveolar clefts: a clinical comparison of 296 cases. J Craniomaxillofac Surg 1993;21:143–148
Hogeman KE, Jacobsson S, Sarna ̈s KV. Secondary bone grafting in cleft palate: a follow-up of 145 patients. Cleft Palate J 1972;9:39–42
Enemark H, Jensen J, Bosch C. Mandibular bone graft materials for reconstruction of alveolar cleft defects: long-term results. Cleft Palate Craniofac J 2001;38:155–163
Sindet-Pedersen S, Enemark H. Reconstruction of alveolar clefts with mandibular or iliac crest bone graft: a comparative study. Oral Maxillofac Surg 1990;48:554–558
Koole R, Bosker H, Dussen FN. Late secondary autogenous bone grafting in cleft patients comparing mandibular (ectomesenchymal) and iliac crest (mesenchymal) graft. J Craniomaxillofac Surg 1989;17(suppl 1):28–30
Waitzman AA, Posnick JC, Armstrong DC, et al. Craniofacial skeletal measurements based on computed tomography: part II: normal values and growth trends. Cleft Palate Craniofac J 1992;29:118–128
Iino M, Ishii H, Matsushima R, et al. Comparison of intraoral radiography and computed tomography in evaluation of formation of bone after grafting for repair of residual alveolar defects in patients with cleft lip and palate. Scand J Plast Reconstr Surg Hand Surg 2005;39:15–21
Ludlow JB, Ivanovic M. Comparative dosimetry of dental CBCT devices and 64-slice CT for oral and maxillofacial radiology. Oral Surg Oral Med Oral Pathol Oral Radiol Endod 2008;106:106–114
De Vos W, Casselman J, Swennen GR. Cone-beam computerized tomography (CBCT) imaging of the oral and maxillofacial region: a systematic review of the literature. Int J Oral Maxillofac Surg 2009;38:609–625