Comparison of minimally invasive versus conventional open harvesting technique for iliac bone graft in secondary alveolar bone grafting in cleft palate patients: a systematic review

Abstract

This study evaluated and compared the donor site morbidity following minimally invasive and conventional open harvesting of iliac bone for secondary alveolar bone grafting in cleft palate patients. A thorough electronic search of PubMed, Google Scholar, EMBASE, and an institutional library and manual search of various journals was done; Inclusion criteria: 1) full-text articles using a minimally invasive or conventional open harvesting technique for iliac bone for secondary alveolar grafting in cleft palate patients and 2) articles published between January 1, 2001 and June 30, 2017 and Exclusion criteria: 1) articles published in languages other than English, 2) case reports, case series, animal studies, in vitro studies, and letters to the editor, and 3) full-text article unavailable even after writing to the authors. Preliminary screening of 274 studies excluded 223 studies for not meeting the eligibility criteria. Of the remaining 51 studies, 19 were removed for being duplicates. Of the remaining 32 studies, 15 were excluded after reading the abstract. Of the 17 studies that were left, 2 were excluded because they were in a language other than English, and 2 were excluded because the study group did not mention cleft palate patients. Thus, 13 studies providing results for a total of 654 patients were included in this qualitative synthesis. Minimally invasive bone graft harvest techniques are better than the conventional open iliac bone harvest method because they offer shorter operative time, decreased requirement for pain medications, less pain on discharge, and a shorter hospital stay.

Adapting the Pore Size of Individual, 3D-Printed CPC Scaffolds in Maxillofacial Surgery

“…An eligible bone substitute with outstanding properties is the autologous bone graft [ 1 ]. However, this requires harvesting from other anatomical sites, which is associated with donor site morbidity and limited capacity [ 2 , 3 , 4 , 5 ]. For this reason, the necessity to develop new synthetic bone substitute materials is increasing.…”

Long-Term Stability of Alveolar Bone Graft in Cleft Lip and Palate Patients: Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

“…This study also evaluated the long-term outcomes of iliac crest bone grafting, which is regarded as gold standard bone grafting in facial clefts because of the availability of adequate volume of cortical and canselleous bones. 10,15 Nonetheless, the use of this bone is associated with its own morbidities and is known to increase the risks and time of surgery and, therefore, other methods have been introduced to replace bone grafts, especially iliac bone grafts. In the study of Du et al, 40 the rate of bone resorption 1 year after surgery was compared with that of bone marrow cells and betatricalcium phosphate granules.…”

“…1 The benefits of alveolar bone grafting include integrating maxillary segments and helping to create a uniform alveolar ridge, supporting and assisting bone growth in adjacent teeth, an opportunity for rapid maxillary suture expansion, permitting orthodontic tooth alignment, allowing placement of osseointegrated implants, removal of oronasal fistula, and improving alar base symmetry, lip support, and facial esthetics. [1][2][3][9][10][11][12] Alveolar bone grafting can be performed at various ages based on the patient's age or dental development. There are 2 categories in this regard: primary bone graft and secondary bone graft.…”

“…Also, since prostheses are often placed based on the surgeon's tactile sense and experiences, there are possibilities of malpositioning or under-/overcorrection. 10…”

Endoscope-Assisted Multilayered Repair in Oronasal Fistula

“…Donor site morbidity at the iliac crest is significant, such as postoperative pain and sensory disturbance, and this results in a prolonged hospital stay. 12 There is also unavoidable bone absorption of the ICBG. It has been reported that the bone absorption rate could be more than 40% at 1 year after SABG, which may increase the need for reoperation.…”