Format

Send to

Choose Destination
Ann Maxillofac Surg. 2013 Jan;3(1):46-50. doi: 10.4103/2231-0746.110083.

Review of secondary alveolar cleft repair.

Author information

1
Department of Plastic and Maxillofacial Surgery, Oral and Maxillofacial Surgery Unit, University Hospital Clínic i Provincial, Barcelona University. Barcelona, Spain ; Department of Pediatric Surgery, Oral and Maxillofacial Surgery Unit, University Hospital Sant Joan de Déu. Barcelona University. Barcelona, Spain.

Abstract

INTRODUCTION:

The alveolar cleft is a bony defect that is present in 75% of the patients with cleft lip and palate. Although secondary alveolar cleft repair is commonly accepted for these patients, nowadays, controversy still remains regarding the surgical technique, the timing of the surgery, the donor site, and whether the use of allogenic materials improve the outcomes. The purpose of the present review was to evaluate the protocol, the surgical technique and the outcomes in a large population of patients with alveolar clefts that underwent secondary alveolar cleft repair.

MATERIALS AND METHODS:

A total of 109 procedures in 90 patients with alveolar cleft were identified retrospectively after institutional review board approval was obtained. The patients were treated at a single institution during a period of 10 years (2001-2011). Data were collected regarding demographics, type of cleft, success parameters of the procedure (oronasal fistulae closure, unification of the maxillary segments, eruption and support of anterior teeth, support to the base of the nose, normal ridge form for prosthetic rehabilitation), donor site morbidity, and complications. Pre- and postoperative radiological examination was performed by means of orthopantomogram and computed tomography (CT) scan.

RESULTS:

The average patient age was 14.2 years (range 4-21.3 years). There were 4 right alveolar-lip clefts, 9 left alveolar-lip clefts, 3 bilateral alveolar-lip clefts, 18 right palate-lip clefts, 40 left palate-lip clefts and 16 bilateral palate-lip clefts. All the success parameters were favorable in 87 patients. Iliac crest bone grafts were employed in all cases. There were three bone graft losses. In three cases, allogenic materials used in a first surgery performed in other centers, underwent infection and lacked consolidation. They were removed and substituted by autogenous iliac crest bone graft.

CONCLUSIONS:

THE USE OF AUTOGENOUS ILIAC CREST FOR SECONDARY ALVEOLAR BONE GRAFTING ACHIEVES ALL THESE SEVERAL OBJECTIVES: (1) to obtain maxillary arch continuity, (2) to maximize bone support for the dentition, (3) to stabilize the maxillary segments after orthodontic treatment, (4) to eliminate oronasal fistulae, (5) to provide nasal alar cartilage support, (6) to establish ideal alveolar morphology, and (7) to provide available bone with attached soft tissue for future endosteal implant placement in cases where there is a residual dental space. We advocate for the use of a minimal incision to obtain the iliac crest bone graft and for the use of a corticocancellous block of bone in combination with bone chips.

KEYWORDS:

Clinical evaluation; retrospective review; secondary alveolar cleft repair

Supplemental Content

Full text links

Icon for Medknow Publications and Media Pvt Ltd Icon for PubMed Central
Loading ...
Support Center