The effects of gingivoperiosteoplasty following alveolar molding with a pin-retained latham appliance versus secondary bone grafting on midfacial growth in patients with unilateral clefts

被引:36
作者
Matic, Damir B.
Power, Stephanie M.
机构
[1] Univ Western Ontario, Div Plast & Reconstruct Surg, Div Paediat Surg, London, ON N6A 3K7, Canada
[2] Univ Western Ontario, Div Paediat, London, ON N6A 3K7, Canada
关键词
D O I
10.1097/PRS.0b013e3181811a6d
中图分类号
R61 [外科手术学];
学科分类号
摘要
Background: Gingivoperiosteoplasly is used for early closure of the alveolar cleft in patients with complete of the primary palate. However, its impact on long facial development remains unclear. The purpose of this study was to evaluate the effects of gingivoperiosteoplasty following alveolar molding with a pin-retained Latham appliance on long-term midfacial growth and compare it with secondary bone grafting. Methods: A retrospective review identified patients born with unilateral complete clefts of the primary and secondary palate. All patients were past the age of permanent canine tooth eruption. Standard cephalometric landmarks were plotted and analyzed by a blinded rater. Patients were divided into two groups based on type of alveolar closure: secondary bone grafting-only or gingivoperiosteoplasty-total. The gingivoperiosteoplasty-total group was further subdivided based on gingivoperiosteoplasty clinical outcomes. Statistical analyses first controlled for age and then for age and palate repair. Results: The average age of the patients was 14.7 years. Radiographs were obtained for 54 patients (gingivoperiosteoplasty-total, n = 38; secondary bone grafting-only, n = 16). The gingivoperiosteoplasty-total group demonstrated decreased maxillary height (p = 0.005) and protrusion (p = 0.001) versus secondary bone grafting only. Dentoalveolar occlusion was not statistically different between groups. Conclusions: Gingivoperiosteoplasty following alveolar molding with a pin-retained Latham appliance resulted in decreased maxillary protrusion and height compared with secondary bone grafting only. These differences were found irrespective of the technique of palatoplasty. This technique resulted in similar growth patterns as documented following primary bone grafting. Secondary bone grafting therefore remains the authors surgical approach to the cleft alveolus.
引用
收藏
页码:863 / 870
页数:8
相关论文
共 42 条
[1]   SECONDARY BONE-GRAFTING OF ALVEOLAR CLEFTS - A SURGICAL-ORTHODONTIC TREATMENT ENABLING A NON-PROSTHODONTIC REHABILITATION IN CLEFT-LIP AND PALATE PATIENTS [J].
ABYHOLM, FE ;
BERGLAND, O ;
SEMB, G .
SCANDINAVIAN JOURNAL OF PLASTIC AND RECONSTRUCTIVE SURGERY AND HAND SURGERY, 1981, 15 (02) :127-140
[2]  
[Anonymous], 1976, Cleft Craft: The Evolution of its Surgery
[3]  
Bardach J., 1987, Surgical Techniques in Cleft Lip and Palate
[4]  
BERGLAND O, 1986, CLEFT PALATE J, V23, P175
[5]  
BOYNE PJ, 1972, J ORAL SURG, V30, P87
[6]   THE EARLY GINGIVOALVEOLOPLASTY - PRELIMINARY-RESULTS [J].
BRUSATI, R ;
MANNUCCI, N .
SCANDINAVIAN JOURNAL OF PLASTIC AND RECONSTRUCTIVE SURGERY AND HAND SURGERY, 1992, 26 (01) :65-70
[7]   Radiographic and aerodynamic measures of velopharyngeal anatomy and function following Furlow Z-plasty [J].
D'Antonio, LL ;
Eichenberg, BJ ;
Zimmerman, GJ ;
Patel, S ;
Riski, JE ;
Herber, SC ;
Hardesty, RA .
PLASTIC AND RECONSTRUCTIVE SURGERY, 2000, 106 (03) :539-549
[8]  
Daskalogiannakis J, 1997, CLEFT PALATE-CRAN J, V34, P455, DOI 10.1597/1545-1569(1997)034<0455:EOABGI>2.3.CO
[9]  
2
[10]  
DREYER TM, 1984, CLEFT PALATE J, V21, P251