Use of mandibular chin bone for alveolar bone grafting in cleft patients

Park, Young-Wook; Lee, Jang-Ha

doi:10.1186/s40902-016-0091-z

Cited by 11 publications

(4 citation statements)

References 30 publications

(30 reference statements)

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…A single operating site, an invisible scar, reduced postoperative pain, and hospital stay are major advantages (Koole, 1994; Booij et al, 2005; Andersen et al, 2014). Several teams (Freihofer et al, 1993; Koole, 1994; Park & Lee, 2016; Attar et al, 2017) describe good results using mandibular grafts, comparable to grafts with iliac bone, but most of their assessments were made in 2 dimensions and cannot be conclusive. Moreover, most of the authors report that the harvested bone volume on mandibular symphysis is often insufficient in case of large or bilateral clefts (Freihofer et al, 1993, Bähr & Coulon, 1996; Weijs et al, 2010; Shirzadeh et al, 2018).…”

Section: Autologous Bone Graftsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Cleft Alveolar Bone Graft Materials: Literature Review

Dissaux

Ruffenach

Bruant-Rodier

et al. 2021

The Cleft Palate Craniofacial Journal

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Introduction: Since the early stages of alveolar bone grafting development, multiple types of materials have been used. Iliac cancellous bone graft (ICBG) remains the gold standard. Design/Methods: A review of literature is conducted in order to describe the different bone filling possibilities, autologous or not, and to assess their effectiveness compared to ICBG. This review focused on studies reporting volumetric assessment of the alveolar cleft graft result (by computed tomography scan or cone beam computed tomography). Results: Grafting materials fall into 3 types: autologous bone grafts, ICBG supplementary material, and bone substitutes. Among autologous materials, no study showed the superiority of any other bone origin over iliac cancellous bone. Yet ICBG gives inconsistent results and presents donor site morbidity. Concerning supplementary material, only 3 studies could show a benefit of adding platelet-rich fibrin (1 study) or platelet-rich plasma (2 studies) to ICBG, which remains controversial in most studies. There is a lack of 3-dimensional (3D) assessment in most articles concerning the use of scaffolds. Only one study showed graft improvement when adding acellular dermal matrix to ICBG. Looking at bone substitutes highlights failures among bioceramics alone, side-effects with bone morphogenetic protein-2 composite materials, and difficulties in cell therapy setup. Studies assessing cell therapy–based substitutes show comparable efficacy with ICBG but remain too few. Conclusion: This review highlights the lack of 3D assessments in the alveolar bone graft materials field. Nothing dethroned ICBG from its position as the gold standard treatment at this time.

show abstract

Section: Autologous Bone Graftsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Cleft Alveolar Bone Graft Materials: Literature Review

Dissaux

Ruffenach

Bruant-Rodier

et al. 2021

The Cleft Palate Craniofacial Journal

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…It is important to note that timing of surgery is dependent on the patient's dental development rather than chronological age. 14 . Size of initial cleft and ease of revascularization are the most important factor that decides the outcome than the type of grafts.…”

Section: Timing Of Bone Graftingmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Infact all other types of grafts are compared against iliac crest graft. Animal studies have shown that endochondral bone rapidly get revascularised than intramembraneous bone, hence initial success evaluated after 6 months is greater with endochondral bone and after 6 months intramembraneous bone is well maintained than endochondralbone 14 . This is due to the difference in microarchitecture of the mineralized bone.…”

Section: Types Of Graftsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Alveolar Bone Grafting in Cleft Palate Patients – An Orthodontic Perspective

Kumar¹

2020

jmscr

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Cleft lip and palate is one of the birth defects affecting new born children throughout the world with wide geographical variation of its prevalence. The treatment approach of this congenital anomaly is multidisciplinary team work which include a paediatrician, pedodontist, plastic surgeon, psychologist, speech therapist, orthodontist, oral and maxillofacial surgeon and prosthodontist. Unfortunately there is a lack of consensus exists in the management protocol available and the diversity is mainly due to the lack of higher level evidence, dictating the management by dominant team member based on their experience and diversity of the problem. One of the critical stages in cleft management is alveolar bone grafting of the cleft defect area. A thorough understanding about timing, orthodontic preparation, graft materials and post-grafting care would improve the treatment outcome in many patients. An attempt is given here to increase the efficacy of these aspects so as to achieve the best possible treatment outcome in such unfortunate children.

show abstract

“…In addition, revascularisation of chin grafts has been observed to be more rapid compared to other thicker grafts. [1][2][3][4][5][6][7][8][9][10] The relevance of the autologous chin graft is supported by its role as a fast, safe and reliable solution, with the additional advantage of avoiding immunological rejection due to its own origin. The scientific literature highlights its superior efficacy and prognosis compared to other types of grafts, such as allografts, xenografts, alloplasts or synthetics.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%