Alveolar cleft reconstruction has historically relied on autologous iliac crest bone grafting (ICBG), but donor site morbidity, pain, and prolonged hospitalization have prompted the search for bone graft substitutes. The authors evaluated bone graft substitutes with the highest levels of evidence, and highlight the products that show promise in alveolar cleft repair and in maxillary augmentation. This comprehensive review guides the craniofacial surgeon toward safe and informed utilization of biomaterials in the alveolar cleft.A literature search was performed to identify in vitro human studies that fulfilled the following criteria: Level I or Level II of evidence, ≥30 subjects, and a direct comparison between a autologous bone graft and a bone graft substitute. A second literature search was performed that captured all studies, regardless of level of evidence, which evaluated bone graft substitutes for alveolar cleft repair or alveolar augmentation for dental implants. Adverse events for each of these products were tabulated as well.Sixteen studies featuring 6 bone graft substitutes: hydroxyapatite, demineralized bone matrix (DBM), β-tricalcium phosphate (TCP), calcium phosphate, recombinant human bone morphogenic protein-2 (rhBMP-2), and rhBMP7 fit the inclusion criteria for the first search. Through our second search, the authors found that DBM, TCP, rhBMP-2, and rhBMP7 have been studied most extensively in the alveolar cleft literature, though frequently in studies using less rigorous methodology (Level III evidence or below). rhBMP-2 was the best studied and showed comparable efficacy to ICBG in terms of volume of bone regeneration, bone density, and capacity to accommodate tooth eruption within the graft site. Pricing for products ranged from $290 to $3110 per 5 mL.The balance between innovation and safety is a complex process requiring constant vigilance and evaluation. Here, the authors profile several bone graft substitutes that demonstrate the most promise in alveolar cleft reconstruction.

Background: Facial asymmetry caused by unilateral condylar hyperplasia requires treatment to address facial and occlusal imbalances. There is no definitive evidence to suggest that a single intervention strategy (during either active condylar overgrowth or the burnt-out phase) results in better/more symmetric correction. This study sought to quantify preoperative and postoperative facial asymmetry in unilateral condylar hyperplasia patients comparing treatment for active versus burnt-out disease. Methods: Preoperative and postoperative three-dimensional photographs were obtained. Images were compared to those of unaffected controls as a standard for normal facial symmetry. Facial asymmetry was assessed using root-mean-square deviation. Paired t tests were performed to compare the root-mean-square deviations of preoperative and postoperative images between the unilateral condylar hyperplasia groups and against controls. Results: Forty patients were included (11 active, nine burnt-out, and 20 controls) and 60 three-dimensional images were evaluated. Preoperatively, patients in the burnt-out group had worse asymmetry than those with active unilateral condylar hyperplasia (p = 0.011). Both groups demonstrated significantly improved symmetry postoperatively (active, p = 0.0069; burnt-out, p = 1.74E-4). However, burnt-out patients remained with some residual asymmetry (p = 4.75E-4), whereas their active counterparts showed no significant difference compared to unaffected controls (p = 0.089). Conclusions: Patients with end-stage unilateral condylar hyperplasia have more severe facial asymmetry that is more difficult to normalize compared to earlier intervention during active unilateral condylar hyperplasia. These findings suggest that, if possible, corrective intervention is preferable during active unilateral condylar hyperplasia. CLINICAL QUESTION/LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Risk, II.

Background: Facial asymmetry from unilateral condylar hyperplasia (UCH) may be definitively treated in the presence of active disease (with high condylectomy and concurrent orthognathic surgery) or after waiting for disease inactivity (orthognathic surgery alone). There is currently no consensus on the standard of care. In this study, we sought to compare functional and esthetic outcomes, as well as treatment duration, between these 2 management options. Methods: Patients who underwent treatment for UCH were identified through retrospective review. Pre- and postoperative 3-dimensional (3D) images were obtained. Short- and long-term operative outcomes of those treated during the active (group 1) were compared to those treated in the inactive phase (group 2). Total treatment time, operative time, and length of hospital stay were evaluated. Facial asymmetry was also assessed by laypersons using a Likert scale. Results: Fifteen patients (mean 25.6 years, range 14–56) were included: 6 in group 1 and 9 in group 2. All surgical outcomes were statistically independent of procedure type. Treatment time was significantly longer in the group 2 (P = 0.03). Both groups demonstrated significant improvement in facial asymmetry scores postoperatively with no significant difference in pre- or postoperative asymmetry between groups (P = 0.64). Conclusions: In patients with active UCH, high condylectomy and orthognathic surgery is a procedure that restores facial symmetry and improves jaw function while halting mandibular growth. Good esthetic and functional outcomes, as well as reduced treatment time and disease burden, support the use of this treatment option for this population.