What is the relapse after Le Fort I maxillary advancement in cleft lip and palate patients? A systematic review

Velasques, Bibiana Dalsasso; Moura, Lucas Borin; Martins, João Roig; Damian, Melissa Feres; Xavier, Cristina Braga

doi:10.1007/s10006-020-00906-y

Cited by 9 publications

(12 citation statements)

References 33 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Heliovaara et al have found a horizontal relapse rate of 0.8 mm similar to our study [ 29 ]. Velasques et al found a horizontal relapse rate of 1.2 mm similar to our study [ 30 ]. In contrast to other studies, we could not find statistically significant relapses in the vertical dimension (Table 4 ) [ 6 ].…”

Section: Discussionsupporting

confidence: 92%

Comparative Evaluation of Relapse After LeFort 1 Osteotomy in Cleft Palate and Non-cleft Individuals: A Longitudinal Study

Patil,

Basavaraddi,

Revankar

et al. 2024

Cureus

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Purpose: The aim of this study was to assess and compare the likelihood of relapse one year after LeFort I advancement surgery in patients with and without cleft lip and palate. Methods: A retrospective observational study which included two groups of participants who underwent LeFort I maxillary advancement was performed. Group 1 included 10 non-cleft subjects and Group 2 included 21 subjects with cleft palate. These maxillary deficient patients were chosen and operated using a technique where only a sagittal displacement was intended. Patients who underwent additional mandibular surgery, significant vertical or transverse alterations, or both were excluded. Pre-operative (T1), immediately post-operative (T2), and minimum one-year follow-up (T3) lateral cephalograms were studied for each group. Skeletal stability and dental stability after LeFort I surgery at a minimum of one-year follow-up in cleft palate and non-cleft patients were evaluated. Results: For the given sample size, relapse tendencies showed statistically significant differences between cleft palate patients and non-cleft palate patients after maxillary advancement. The sella nasion angle and horizontal overlap of the maxillary and mandibular incisors (overjet) decreased by 2 degrees and 0.9 mm respectively in the cleft palate group while decreasing by 1.10 degrees and 0.40 mm in the non-cleft group. Conclusions: After maxillary advancement with LeFort I osteotomy and miniplate fixation in patients with cleft palate and non-cleft patients, some degree of relapse was detected in both groups for the given sample size after one year post-operatively. The cleft palate group displayed additional relapse tendencies when compared to the non-cleft group.

show abstract

Section: Discussionsupporting

confidence: 92%

Comparative Evaluation of Relapse After LeFort 1 Osteotomy in Cleft Palate and Non-cleft Individuals: A Longitudinal Study

Patil,

Basavaraddi,

Revankar

et al. 2024

Cureus

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Numerous clinical studies prove that PRF affects soft tissue and has the ability to accelerate the closure of extraction sockets as well as improve periodontal status (PD reduction, CAL gain, KM width increase) [ 47 , 59 ]. PRF demonstrates a reduction of postoperative pain sensation [ 30 , 31 , 47 ], swelling [ 23 , 30 ], and faster neurosensory recovery [ 55 ] after surgery. Acting on hard tissue, PRF is able to reduce bone resorption [ 23 , 27 , 35 , 52 ], increase and accelerate bone formation [ 29 , 37 , 52 , 56 , 57 ], enhance the stability of bones after surgery [ 54 ], and provide faster dental implant osseointegration as well as increased dental implant stability, especially in early phases [ 42 , 43 ].…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…If the size of the gap between the osteotomy segments is larger than 3 mm, then bone healing tends to be inadequate, which may result in impaired hard tissue formation that replaces it with fibrotic tissue [ 33 ]. A higher relapse rate is reported in unilateral cleft lip and palate patients and those who underwent bimaxillary surgery [ 55 ]. In such cases, the use of bone grafts should be considered [ 33 ].…”

Section: Prf Clinical Application In Oral and Maxillofacial Surgerymentioning

confidence: 99%

Can Our Blood Help Ensure Antimicrobial and Anti-Inflammatory Properties in Oral and Maxillofacial Surgery?

Micko

Šalma

Skadiņš

et al. 2023

IJMS

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

In recent decades, the potential of PRF has been extensively studied. The number of studies about PRF has increased three times since the year 2012, but the full spectrum of its fundamental properties, such as antimicrobial and anti-inflammatory activity, is not clearly described. In oral and maxillofacial surgery, PRF is described in alveolar ridge preservation, orthognathic surgery, cleft lip and palate surgery, maxillary sinus augmentation, and dental implant placement as demonstrating favorable results and its clinical advantages. The structural complexity, inhomogeneous nature, and clotting ability of PRF make its antimicrobial effect evaluation complicated. Nevertheless, most of the used antimicrobial testing methods are based on antibacterial agent diffusion ability in culture media. Because the oral and maxillofacial region is the most frequent area of PRF application, its antimicrobial activity evaluation also prevails in the oral microbiome. PRF’s biological potential is highly dependent on the specific preparation protocol and methodology used; it should be carefully prepared and kept under proper conditions to keep cellular content alive. PRF’s influence on living cells demonstrates a stimulating effect on bone regeneration, and an angiogenetic effect, and it provides anti-inflammatory activity. According to analyzed studies, PRF demonstrated success in oral and maxillofacial surgery in various methods of application. Antibacterial and anti-inflammatory properties were proven by antibacterial activity against different bacterial species, sustained growth factor, sustained release, and cell activity on the material application. Accurately and correctly prepared PRF can ensure antibacterial and anti-inflammatory properties, and it can be a beneficial clinical tool in oral and maxillofacial surgery.

show abstract

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…CLPs are frequently associated with a 3-dimensionally deficient maxilla in their midfacial anatomy and various degrees of maxillary hypoplasia (Roy et al, 2019; Velasques et al, 2020). Since 1970, maxillary advancement with Le Fort I osteotomy is the most common procedure in CLP patients with a significant relapse in the postoperative period (Obwegeser, 1962; Wong et al, 2016; Yamaguchi et al, 2016; Harjunpää et al, 2019; Susarla et al, 2020; Velasques et al, 2020). Type of cleft, isolated maxillary advancement or bimaxillary surgery, presence of previous surgery, and use of bone graft in the osteotomy gap are the factors that can affect the relapse and stability in CLP patients (Hoffman and Brennan, 2004; Costa et al, 2006; Velasques et al, 2020).…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Oral Rehabilitation of Bilateral Cleft Lip and Palate Patient with Simultaneous LeFort I Osteotomy and Zygomatic Implants: A Case Report

Göker

Grecchi

Fabbro

et al. 2021

The Cleft Palate-Craniofacial Journal

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The aim of this study is to evaluate Le Fort I Osteotomy and zygomatic implantation without any graft placement for management of a cleft lip and palate patient. This case report describes oral rehabilitation of a 33-year-old patient with bilateral cleft lip-palate and oronasal fistula and atrophic pre-maxilla. As treatment, the patient received simultaneous Le Fort I osteotomy, palatoplasty and two zygomatic implant insertions. The prosthetic superstructure included zygomatic implant-supported removable hybrid prosthesis on bar locator and metal-ceramic fixed bridges in the posterior region. As conclusion, this protocol can be promising for management of patients with cleft lip-palate and malocclusion.

show abstract

What is the relapse after Le Fort I maxillary advancement in cleft lip and palate patients? A systematic review

Cited by 9 publications

References 33 publications

Comparative Evaluation of Relapse After LeFort 1 Osteotomy in Cleft Palate and Non-cleft Individuals: A Longitudinal Study

Comparative Evaluation of Relapse After LeFort 1 Osteotomy in Cleft Palate and Non-cleft Individuals: A Longitudinal Study

Can Our Blood Help Ensure Antimicrobial and Anti-Inflammatory Properties in Oral and Maxillofacial Surgery?

Oral Rehabilitation of Bilateral Cleft Lip and Palate Patient with Simultaneous LeFort I Osteotomy and Zygomatic Implants: A Case Report

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About