Osteoplasty of the maxilla in patients with unilateral cleft lip and palate by a mandibular bone graft with the use of 3D computer modeling

Cover Page


Cite item

Full Text

Abstract

Rationale: Maxillary defects in patients with unilateral cleft lip and palate are very heterogeneous. The existing methods to assess the results of osteoplasty are suboptimal. The ways to measure the volume of a defect are not truly three-dimensional; instead, they are based on the sum of the sizes of maxillary defect measured in the sections done across the alveolar process. This is a more or less precise approximation and its calculation may be time-consuming. Aim: To evaluate efficacy of osteoplasty with a mandible bone autograft in children with cleft lip and palate and to determine the optimal pre-requisites for satisfactory treatment results. Materials and methods: We examined and treated 30 patients with unilateral cleft lip and palate and maxillary defects, aged from 7 to 17 (mean age 11.2 ± 3.5 years). The following types of abnormalities were found: incomplete cleft lip, alveolar process and palate; complete cleft lip, alveolar process and palate; complete cleft lip, alveolar process and palate with partial ossification of the posterior hard palate related to previous surgeries. In all patients, the surgical intervention consisted of maxillary osteoplasty with a combination graft consisting of the cortical plate from the mandible body, shaped to the existing defect, an autologous bone chips taken from the mandible ramus, and a Bio-Oss xenograft. The patients were divided into 4 groups, depending on their age, diagnosis, defect size, and postoperative complications. Three-dimensional modeling to determine the volume of the defect was performed as follows: a geometrical model of the mandible defect was obtained based on the mirror copy of the contralateral healthy part; the volume of the defect was computed as the difference between the baseline and the mirror model. The results of the osteoplasty were assessed by Bergland and Chelsea scales, as well as by our own scales. Results: The defect volumes were in the range of 0.46 to 2.9 cm3 (mean, 1.32 ± 0.54 cm3). According to Bergland and Chelsea scales, good results of osteoplasty were obtained in 83% (25 / 30) of the cases. The regenerated bone thickness was good in 94% (28 / 30) of the patients. The edge of the foramen piriformis was well shaped in 90% (27 / 30) of them. After surgery, the volumes of the defects in the patients with incomplete cleft lip, palate and alveolar process were significantly smaller than those in the patients with complete cleft and partial ossification of the posterior hard palate (on average, by 0.8 cm3, p = 0.0071). In all cases, where cortical mandible grafts were taken, it was possible to obtain cortical blocks of the needed size, starting from the age of 7, without any risk of damage to the immature permanent teeth. Graft formation from the mandible body was not associated with any local complications in any patient. Conclusion: Our method of 3D modeling to determine the volume of mandible defects is a truly 3D approach, which allows for a highly accurate quantitative assessment of the defects. The use of the combination grafts from the mandible body and the Bio-Oss xenografts for osteoplasty helps to replace the maxillary defect irrespective of the patient's age and the defect volume. Cortical grafts can be taken from the mandible starting from the age of 7 without any risk of damage to the immature permanent teeth. Irrespective of the clinical situation, the osteoplasty results are influenced predominantly by adherence to the surgical technique and to post-operative recommendations.

About the authors

A. L. Ivanov

Central Research Institute of Dental and Maxillofacial Surgery

Email: fake@neicon.ru

Ivanov Aleksandr L. – MD, PhD, Head of the Department of Surgical Treatment of Cranial and Maxillofacial Abnormalities 

16 Timura Frunze ul.,Moscow,119991

Russian Federation

E. I. Reshetnyak

Central Research Institute of Dental and Maxillofacial Surgery

Author for correspondence.
Email: reshetnyak.ei@inbox.ru

Reshetnyak Evgeniya I. – MD, Postgraduate Student, Department of Surgical Treatment of Cranial and Maxillofacial Abnormalities 

12/1–234 Svyazistov ul., Krasnoznamensk, Moscow Region, 143090

Russian Federation

N. V. Starikova

Central Research Institute of Dental and Maxillofacial Surgery

Email: fake@neicon.ru

Starikova Natal'ya V. – MD, PhD, Head of the Department of Orthodontics 

16 Timura Frunze ul.,Moscow,119991

Russian Federation

A. G. Nadtochiy

Central Research Institute of Dental and Maxillofacial Surgery

Email: fake@neicon.ru

Nadtochiy Andrey G. – MD, PhD, Professor, Head of the Department of Functional Diagnostics 

16 Timura Frunze ul.,Moscow,119991

Russian Federation

References

  1. Агеева ЛВ, Савицкая ГМ, Юлова НА, Воложин АИ, Мамедов АА, Петухова ЛИ. Применение мембран с остеоиндуктивными свойствами для устранения дефектов альвеолярного отростка верхней челюсти и твердого неба. В: Рогинский ВВ, ред. Московский центр детской челюстно-лицевой хирургии. 10 лет работы. Результаты. Итоги. Выводы. М.: Детстомиздат; 2002. с. 31–6.
  2. Kubozono K, Takechi M, Ohta K, Ono S, Nakagawa T, Fujimoto S, Kamata N. Aesthetic recovery of alveolar atrophy following autogenousonlay bone grafting using interconnected porous hydroxyapatite ceramics (IP-CHA) and resorbable poly-L-lactic/ polyglycolic acid screws: case report. BMC Oral Health. 2014;14:60. doi: 10.1186/1472-683114-60.
  3. Rawashdeh MA, Telfah H. Secondary alveolar bone grafting: the dilemma of donor site selection and morbidity. Br J Oral Maxillofac Surg. 2008;46(8): 665–70. doi: 10.1016/j.bjoms.2008.07.184.
  4. Mikoya T, Inoue N, Matsuzawa Y, Totsuka Y, Kajii TS, Hirosawa T. Monocortical mandibular bone grafting for reconstruction of alveolar cleft. Cleft Palate Craniofac J. 2010;47(5): 454–68. doi: 10.1597/09-172.
  5. Rychlik D, Wojcicki P. Bone graft healing in alveolar osteoplasty in patients with unilateral lip, alveolar process, and palate clefts. J Craniofac Surg. 2012;23(1): 118–23. doi: 10.1097/SCS.0b013e318240faa0.
  6. Николаева СА, Топольницкий ОЗ, Першина МА, Соколов ФС. Анализ результатов отсроченной костной пластики у подростков с врожденными расщелинами альвеолярного отростка. В: Материалы V Всероссийской научно-практической конференции «Врожденная и наследственная патология головы, лица и шеи у детей: актуальные вопросы комплексного лечения». Москва, 24–25 ноября 2016. М.; 2016. с. 217–33.
  7. Feichtinger M, Zemann W, Mossbock R, Karcher H. Three-dimensional evaluation of secondary alveolar bone grafting using a 3D-navigation system based on computed tomography: a two-year follow-up. Br J Oral Maxillofac Surg. 2008;46(4): 278–82. doi: 10.1016/j.bjoms.2007.12.010.
  8. Shirota T, Kurabayashi H, Ogura H, Seki K, Maki K, Shintani S. Analysis of bone volume using computer simulation system for secondary bone graft in alveolar cleft. Int J Oral Maxillofac Surg. 2010;39(9): 904–8. doi: 10.1016/j.ijom.2010.04.050.
  9. Picolli P, de Menezes L, Brucker M, Azeredo F, Deon Rizzatto S. Assessment of alveolar defect volume in unilateral cleft lip and palate patients using a free software program. Open Journal of Stomatology. 2013;3(9A):31–6. doi: 10.4236/ojst.2013.39A005.
  10. Bergland O, Semb G, Abyholm F, Borchgrevink H, Eskeland G. Secondary bone grafting and orthodontic treatment in patients with bilateral complete clefts of the lip and palate. Ann Plast Surg. 1986;17(6): 460–74.
  11. Offert B, Janiszewska-Olszowska J, Dudkiewicz Z, Brudnicki A, Katsaros C, Fudalej PS. Facial esthetics in children with unilateral cleft lip and palate 3 years after alveolar bone grafting combined with rhinoplasty between 2 and 4 years of age. Orthod Craniofac Res. 2013;16(1): 36–43. doi: 10.1111/ocr.12002.
  12. Dissaux C, Bodin F, Grollemund B, Bridonneau T, Kauffmann I, Mattern JF, BruantRodier C. Evaluation of success of alveolar cleft bone graft performed at 5 years versus 10 years of age. J Craniomaxillofac Surg. 2016;44(1): 21–6. doi: 10.1016/j.jcms.2015.09.003.
  13. Walia A. Secondary alveolar bone grafting in cleft of the lip and palate patients. Contemp Clin Dent. 2011;2(3): 146–54. doi: 10.4103/0976-237X.86436.
  14. Feichtinger M, Mossbock R, Karcher H. Assessment of bone resorption after secondary alveolar bone grafting using three-dimensional computed tomography: a three-year study. Cleft Palate Craniofac J. 2007;44(2): 142–8. doi: 10.1597/06-047.1.
  15. Emodi O, Noy D, Hazan-Molina H, Aizenbud D, Rachmiel A. Secondary bone grafting of the cleft maxilla following reverse quad-helix expansion in 103 patients. Ann Maxillofac Surg. 2015;5(1): 32–6. doi: 10.4103/22310746.161056.
  16. Goudy S, Lott D, Burton R, Wheeler J, Canady J. Secondary alveolar bone grafting: outcomes, revisions, and new applications. Cleft Palate Craniofac J. 2009;46(6): 610–2. doi: 10.1597/08126.1.
  17. Rocha R, Ritter DE, Locks A, de Paula LK, Santana RM. Ideal treatment protocol for cleft lip and palate patient from mixed to permanent dentition. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop. 2012;141(4 Suppl):S140–8. doi: 10.1016/j.ajodo.2011.03.024.
  18. Russell KA, McLeod CE. Canine eruption in patients with complete cleft lip and palate. Cleft Palate Craniofac J. 2008;45(1): 73–80. doi: 10.1597/07-049.1.

Supplementary files

Supplementary Files
Action
1. JATS XML

Copyright (c) 2017 Ivanov A.L., Reshetnyak E.I., Starikova N.V., Nadtochiy A.G.

Creative Commons License
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.

This website uses cookies

You consent to our cookies if you continue to use our website.

About Cookies