Assessment of Cleft Lip and Palate Patients Treated With Presurgical Orthopedic Correction and Either Primary Bone Grafts, Gingivoperiosteoplasty, or Without Alveolar Grafting Procedures

Grisius, Thomas M.; Spolyar, John L.; Jackson, Ian T.; Bello-Rojas, Gustavo; Dajani, Khaled A.

doi:10.1097/00001665-200605000-00013

Cited by 29 publications

(24 citation statements)

References 21 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Specifically, active appliances (Latham) and NAM appliances have their own surgical techniques with gingivoperiosteoplasty (GPP) in treatment protocols. There are contradictory results of GPP on facial growth in the literature (Henkel, 1997;Wood et al, 1997;Santiago et al, 1998;Lee et al, 2004;Grisius et al, 2006;Matic et al, 2008;Power et al, 2009). Thus, in the CCTs comparing the effects of PSIO within different surgical techniques, it is not easy to differentiate whether the positive or negative results are due to the PSIO or to the surgical technique.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Long-Term Effects of Presurgical Infant Orthopedics in Patients with Cleft Lip and Palate: A Systematic Review

Uzel¹,

Alparslan

2011

The Cleft Palate Craniofacial Journal

112

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Objective: This study aimed to assess the scientific evidence on the efficiency of presurgical infant orthopedic appliances in patients with cleft lip and palate to shed light on a specific, contemporary discussion of whether the appliances have long-term advantages with respect to treatment outcomes.Design: A systematic review. Methods: Two literature surveys from the five electronic databases were performed with a 1-month interval. Randomized controlled trials and controlled clinical trials (controls had no presurgical infant orthopedics) that had followup periods of a minimum of 6 years were included in the study. The exceptions to the follow-up limit were studies related to feeding and parent satisfaction.Results: Of the 319 articles retrieved in the literature surveys, 12 were qualified for the final analysis. The level of evidence of these articles ranged from 1b to 4. Eight randomized controlled trials and four controlled clinical trials were available on eight treatment outcomes. The longest follow-up period of the randomized controlled trials was 6 years. No randomized controlled trials were found on active presurgical infant orthopedic appliances and on nasoalveolar molding appliances.Conclusions: Based on the results, presurgical infant orthopedic appliances have no long-term positive effects on seven of the eight studied treatment outcomes in patients with cleft lip and palate. More randomized controlled trials need to be done to have evidence regarding the effects of presurgical infant orthopedics in different surgical protocols. Also, the encouraging results about the effect of nasolaveolar molding appliances on nasal symmetry have to be supported by future randomized controlled trials.

show abstract

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Long-Term Effects of Presurgical Infant Orthopedics in Patients with Cleft Lip and Palate: A Systematic Review

Uzel¹,

Alparslan

2011

The Cleft Palate Craniofacial Journal

112

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…2Y4 Primary GPP with bone grafting has long raised concerns for impaired maxillary growth and, therefore, is not commonly performed. 5,6 Secondary bone grafting of the alveolar cleft, introduced by Boyne and Sands in 1972, is usually performed during the period of mixed dentition, prior to the eruption of the canine tooth on the cleft side. 7,8 This technique usually combines nasolabial fistula closure with autologous corticocancellous bone grafting into the dentoalveolar gap.…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

Presurgical Nasoalveolar Molding and Primary Gingivoperiosteoplasty Reduce the Need for Bone Grafting in Patients with Bilateral Clefts

Dec

Shetye

Davidson

et al. 2013

Journal of Craniofacial Surgery

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Preoperative nasoalveolar molding (NAM) in combination with primary gingivoperiosteoplasty (GPP) reduces the need for secondary alveolar bone grafting by 60% in patients with unilateral cleft lip and palate (CL/P). Herein, we investigate the efficacy of NAM and primary GPP in patients with bilateral CL/P. All patients (n = 38) with bilateral CL/P who underwent NAM and primary GPP from 1988 to 1998 with at least 14 years of follow-up were included in this study. Panoramic and periapical radiographs were used to assess dentoalveolar bone formation. A total of 38 patients were identified with median follow-up of 18 years (range 14-26 years). Of the 27 patients who underwent bilateral GPP, 14 (51%) patients had successful dentoalveolar bone formation bilaterally and 13 (49%) had unilateral bone formation. No patient had a bilateral failure. Of the 11 patients who underwent unilateral GPP, 7 (63%) patients had successful dentoalveolar bone formation. Bilateral successful dentoalveolar bone formation following primary bilateral GPP has a dependent probability of 52% and a conditional probability of 82%.

show abstract

“…Contrary to the claims, the Millard-type GPP has been shown to not have an effect on the long-term maxillary growth (17). Grisius et al (18) reported no significant differences in the orofacial morphology in the GPP group compared with a non-GPP sample.…”

Section: Gingivoperiosteoplastymentioning

confidence: 95%

Presurgical Nasoalveolar Molding of Bilateral Cleft Lip and Palate Infants: An Orthodontist’s Point of View

Altuğ¹

2017

Turk J Orthod

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Nonsyndromic complete cleft lip and palate deformity is primarily functional, then esthetic, and finally but not least importantly, a dental challenge. Feeding and facial appearance are important during the first years of a newborn. Nutrition is universally provided by passive feeding plates. If the Cleft Team prefers to use active plates, alveolar molding combined with nasal approaches in infants is the best method to improve esthetics to date. Orthodontists are predominantly responsible for achieving both the goals. After those difficulties have been met in early days of the life, dentists are mainly responsible for the treatment thereafter. If the infants have a dentoalveolar unity without any fistulas and correctly aligned maxillary deciduous teeth, this is a real success. Therefore, this article is an overview of presurgical infant orthopedics and its contribution to subsequent dental practice.

show abstract

Assessment of Cleft Lip and Palate Patients Treated With Presurgical Orthopedic Correction and Either Primary Bone Grafts, Gingivoperiosteoplasty, or Without Alveolar Grafting Procedures

Cited by 29 publications

References 21 publications

Long-Term Effects of Presurgical Infant Orthopedics in Patients with Cleft Lip and Palate: A Systematic Review

Long-Term Effects of Presurgical Infant Orthopedics in Patients with Cleft Lip and Palate: A Systematic Review

Presurgical Nasoalveolar Molding and Primary Gingivoperiosteoplasty Reduce the Need for Bone Grafting in Patients with Bilateral Clefts

Presurgical Nasoalveolar Molding of Bilateral Cleft Lip and Palate Infants: An Orthodontist’s Point of View

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About