Implant-borne rehabilitation for alveolar dental cleft: Retrospective analysis of thirty-nine cases

Saint-Surin, I.; Roman, T.; Touzet-Roumazeille, Sandrine; Ferri, Joël; Lauwers, Ludovic

doi:10.1016/j.jormas.2019.10.007

Cited by 4 publications

(4 citation statements)

References 13 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Also, a funnel plot (Figure 3) shows MBL in cleft patients and other patients in follow-up after implant. Most of the studies included in the systematic review performed bone grafting using either autogenous iliac crest (AUIC) or allergenic bone grafts, which have shown excellent outcomes in managing cleft patients [12][13][14][15][16][17][18][19][20].…”

Section: Results Of Meta-analysismentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Effectiveness, Esthetics, and Success Rate of Dental Implants in Bone-Grafted Regions of Cleft Lip and Palate Patients: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

Pathak,

Dhamande,

Sathe

et al. 2023

Cureus

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Congenital clefts impair function and appearance, thus impacting a patient's social and mental health. A multidisciplinary team that can offer comprehensive treatment from infancy through maturity and beyond can successfully address these abnormalities. Dental rehabilitation is very important for these patients; these abnormalities should be identified and must be treated accordingly. Hence it is of utmost importance to know the success rate and changes in quality of life from patient satisfaction in order to plan future treatment goals when coming across such cases. The aim of this article is to determine success rate, esthetics, and patient satisfaction in implant-based oral rehabilitation in bone-grafted regions of cleft patients. Registration was carried out in PROSPERO (International Prospective Register of Systematic Review) with registration number CRD42022329861 on May 7, 2022. Medical Subject Headings (MeSH) terms such as cleft lip, cleft palate, survival rate, and dental implants were used to handpick articles via an electronic database. Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) guidelines were followed to compile all the data gathered from an electronic database. According to the collected data, 93.5% of the survival rate with dental implants was noted irrespective of the type of bone grafts used. Also, improvement in quality of life was achieved in these patients. Effectiveness, esthetics, and success rate are very well achievable with implants in cleft patients. Although the aesthetics are not equivalent to that of dental implants in normal patients, patient satisfaction is still satisfactory in patients with dental implants in bone-grafted regions of cleft lip and palate.

show abstract

Section: Results Of Meta-analysismentioning

confidence: 99%

“…The existing database emphasizes the multiple benefits of dental implants in CLP patients [12][13][14][15][16][17][18][19][20]. Other parameters assessed by the authors included in the review are summarised in Table 3.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Effectiveness, Esthetics, and Success Rate of Dental Implants in Bone-Grafted Regions of Cleft Lip and Palate Patients: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

Pathak,

Dhamande,

Sathe

et al. 2023

Cureus

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…However, certain situations make other options on table. Indeed, prosthetic rehabilitation can in some cases prove difficult for several reasons 46 . Thus the periodontal situation, the socio-economic conditions, the state of the teeth around the gap can make discuss other options.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Secondary Care of Cleft Lip and Palate: Analysis of Dentofacial Orthopedic and Orthognathic Treatments

Ferri

Schlund

Nicot

et al. 2021

Journal of Craniofacial Surgery

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Group B: Patients <10 years old, with alveolar cleft and oronasal communication, without previous attempt to close it. Group C: Patients <10 years old, with alveolar cleft and oronasal communication, and having already had at least 1 attempt to close it. Group D: Patients 10 to 18 years old, without alveolar cleft (already closed). Group E: Patients 10 to 18 years old, with alveolar cleft and oronasal communication, without previous attempt to close it. Group F: Patients 10 to 18 years old, with alveolar cleft and oronasal communication, and having already had at least 1 attempt to close it. Group G: Adult patients, without alveolar cleft (already closed). Group H: Adult patients, with alveolar cleft and oronasal communication, without previous attempt to close it. Group I: Adult patients, with alveolar cleft and oronasal communication, and having already had at least 1 attempt to close it.

show abstract

“…14,15 In many cases, regrafting is necessary 9,13,16 after growth ceases. Survival rates for dental implants in clefts range from 75% to 96%, depending on the follow-up time, 9,[17][18][19][20][21] bone quality, surgical technique, presence or absence of postoperative infection, occlusal load, and other factors. 22 This study aimed to evaluate the survival rate of osseointegrated implants in the cleft area, correlating it with factors, such as age, sex, and the need for regrafting.…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

Survival Rate of Dental Implants in the Cleft Area: A Cross-Sectional Retrospective Study

Chepernate Vieira dos Santos,

Gonçalves,

Souza Campos Costa

et al. 2023

Journal of Craniofacial Surgery

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

This study aimed to evaluate the survival rate of osseointegrated implants installed in the cleft area. An extensive data survey was conducted using the medical records of individuals who had implants installed in the cleft area between 1999 and 2020. The variables assessed were age, sex, implant follow-up time, implantation procedures, and rehabilitation with implant-supported prostheses. Data were analyzed in terms of implant survival time, correlating with the factors: age, sex, execution, or no-execution of bone regrafting, the time interval between secondary alveolar bone grafting and regrafting, the time interval between regrafting and implant installation, and the time interval between implant installation and provisional and definitive prosthesis. Data were analyzed with respect to implant survival. χ2 and Student t tests were used with a 5% significance level. A total of 1295 medical records were analyzed, of which 688 reported implants in cleft areas (56.1% in females, 43.9% in males) with a success rate of 92.73% and a mean follow-up time of 53.2 (±45.0) months. There were no statistically significant differences in the correlation between the survival rate and sex (P = 0.895, χ2 test), between the implant survival rate and regrafted area (P = 0.904, χ2 test), or between the survival rate and patient age (P = 0.246, Student t test). The survival rate of implants in the cleft area was 92.73%. Age, sex, and the need for regrafting did not influence the survival rate of implants installed in the cleft area. Clinical studies that evaluate the survival rate of implants installed in patients with cleft maxilla are of great relevance to the dental field.

show abstract

Implant-borne rehabilitation for alveolar dental cleft: Retrospective analysis of thirty-nine cases

Cited by 4 publications

References 13 publications

Effectiveness, Esthetics, and Success Rate of Dental Implants in Bone-Grafted Regions of Cleft Lip and Palate Patients: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

Effectiveness, Esthetics, and Success Rate of Dental Implants in Bone-Grafted Regions of Cleft Lip and Palate Patients: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

Secondary Care of Cleft Lip and Palate: Analysis of Dentofacial Orthopedic and Orthognathic Treatments

Survival Rate of Dental Implants in the Cleft Area: A Cross-Sectional Retrospective Study

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About