Comparative outcomes of primary gingivoperiosteoplasty and secondary alveolar bone grafting in patients with unilateral cleft lip and palate

Yi Chin Wang, Yu Fang Liao, Philip Kuo Ting Chen

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

6 Citations (Scopus)

Abstract

Background: The role of primary gingivoperiosteoplasty in the repair of alveolar clefts remains controversial. The aim of this study was to compare the outcomes of primary gingivoperiosteoplasty and secondary alveolar bone grafting in patients with unilateral cleft lip and palate. Methods: In this prospective study, the authors analyzed the postoperative cone-beam computed tomographic scans of 50 children with complete unilateral cleft lip and palate who underwent primary gingivoperiosteoplasty (n = 25) or secondary alveolar bone grafting (n = 25). These two methods of alveolar repair were compared by measuring residual cleft defect and unsupported root ratio of cleft-adjacent central incisors on patient scans. Results: Patients who underwent repair by primary gingivoperiosteoplasty presented more need for additional bone grafting than those undergoing repair by secondary alveolar bone grafting (28 percent versus 4 percent, respectively; p < 0.05). Residual cleft defect was greater in patients who underwent repair by primary gingivoperiosteoplasty than by secondary alveolar bone grafting (305.8 ± 176.5 mm3 versus 178.6 ± 122.0 mm3, respectively; p < 0.05). Patients who underwent repair by primary gingivoperiosteoplasty showed more residual palatal coronal and palatal apical defects than those who underwent repair by secondary alveolar bone grafting (p < 0.05 and p < 0.001, respectively). Conclusions: In patients with unilateral cleft lip and palate, primary gingivoperiosteoplasty can achieve 72 percent success. Primary gingivoperiosteoplasty results in less bone than secondary alveolar bone grafting, particularly on the palatal apical portion of the previous alveolar cleft. Clinical success is lower with primary gingivoperiosteoplasty than with secondary alveolar bone grafting.

Original languageEnglish
Pages (from-to)218-227
Number of pages10
JournalPlastic and Reconstructive Surgery
Volume137
Issue number1
DOIs
Publication statusPublished - Jan 1 2016
Externally publishedYes

Fingerprint

Alveolar Bone Grafting
Cleft Lip
Cleft Palate
Bone Transplantation
Incisor
Prospective Studies
Bone and Bones

ASJC Scopus subject areas

  • Surgery

Cite this

@article{16438496a4594a13b1a25aafaddaef73,
title = "Comparative outcomes of primary gingivoperiosteoplasty and secondary alveolar bone grafting in patients with unilateral cleft lip and palate",
abstract = "Background: The role of primary gingivoperiosteoplasty in the repair of alveolar clefts remains controversial. The aim of this study was to compare the outcomes of primary gingivoperiosteoplasty and secondary alveolar bone grafting in patients with unilateral cleft lip and palate. Methods: In this prospective study, the authors analyzed the postoperative cone-beam computed tomographic scans of 50 children with complete unilateral cleft lip and palate who underwent primary gingivoperiosteoplasty (n = 25) or secondary alveolar bone grafting (n = 25). These two methods of alveolar repair were compared by measuring residual cleft defect and unsupported root ratio of cleft-adjacent central incisors on patient scans. Results: Patients who underwent repair by primary gingivoperiosteoplasty presented more need for additional bone grafting than those undergoing repair by secondary alveolar bone grafting (28 percent versus 4 percent, respectively; p < 0.05). Residual cleft defect was greater in patients who underwent repair by primary gingivoperiosteoplasty than by secondary alveolar bone grafting (305.8 ± 176.5 mm3 versus 178.6 ± 122.0 mm3, respectively; p < 0.05). Patients who underwent repair by primary gingivoperiosteoplasty showed more residual palatal coronal and palatal apical defects than those who underwent repair by secondary alveolar bone grafting (p < 0.05 and p < 0.001, respectively). Conclusions: In patients with unilateral cleft lip and palate, primary gingivoperiosteoplasty can achieve 72 percent success. Primary gingivoperiosteoplasty results in less bone than secondary alveolar bone grafting, particularly on the palatal apical portion of the previous alveolar cleft. Clinical success is lower with primary gingivoperiosteoplasty than with secondary alveolar bone grafting.",
author = "Wang, {Yi Chin} and Liao, {Yu Fang} and Chen, {Philip Kuo Ting}",
year = "2016",
month = "1",
day = "1",
doi = "10.1097/PRS.0000000000001897",
language = "English",
volume = "137",
pages = "218--227",
journal = "Plastic and Reconstructive Surgery",
issn = "0032-1052",
publisher = "Lippincott Williams and Wilkins",
number = "1",

}

TY - JOUR

T1 - Comparative outcomes of primary gingivoperiosteoplasty and secondary alveolar bone grafting in patients with unilateral cleft lip and palate

AU - Wang, Yi Chin

AU - Liao, Yu Fang

AU - Chen, Philip Kuo Ting

PY - 2016/1/1

Y1 - 2016/1/1

N2 - Background: The role of primary gingivoperiosteoplasty in the repair of alveolar clefts remains controversial. The aim of this study was to compare the outcomes of primary gingivoperiosteoplasty and secondary alveolar bone grafting in patients with unilateral cleft lip and palate. Methods: In this prospective study, the authors analyzed the postoperative cone-beam computed tomographic scans of 50 children with complete unilateral cleft lip and palate who underwent primary gingivoperiosteoplasty (n = 25) or secondary alveolar bone grafting (n = 25). These two methods of alveolar repair were compared by measuring residual cleft defect and unsupported root ratio of cleft-adjacent central incisors on patient scans. Results: Patients who underwent repair by primary gingivoperiosteoplasty presented more need for additional bone grafting than those undergoing repair by secondary alveolar bone grafting (28 percent versus 4 percent, respectively; p < 0.05). Residual cleft defect was greater in patients who underwent repair by primary gingivoperiosteoplasty than by secondary alveolar bone grafting (305.8 ± 176.5 mm3 versus 178.6 ± 122.0 mm3, respectively; p < 0.05). Patients who underwent repair by primary gingivoperiosteoplasty showed more residual palatal coronal and palatal apical defects than those who underwent repair by secondary alveolar bone grafting (p < 0.05 and p < 0.001, respectively). Conclusions: In patients with unilateral cleft lip and palate, primary gingivoperiosteoplasty can achieve 72 percent success. Primary gingivoperiosteoplasty results in less bone than secondary alveolar bone grafting, particularly on the palatal apical portion of the previous alveolar cleft. Clinical success is lower with primary gingivoperiosteoplasty than with secondary alveolar bone grafting.

AB - Background: The role of primary gingivoperiosteoplasty in the repair of alveolar clefts remains controversial. The aim of this study was to compare the outcomes of primary gingivoperiosteoplasty and secondary alveolar bone grafting in patients with unilateral cleft lip and palate. Methods: In this prospective study, the authors analyzed the postoperative cone-beam computed tomographic scans of 50 children with complete unilateral cleft lip and palate who underwent primary gingivoperiosteoplasty (n = 25) or secondary alveolar bone grafting (n = 25). These two methods of alveolar repair were compared by measuring residual cleft defect and unsupported root ratio of cleft-adjacent central incisors on patient scans. Results: Patients who underwent repair by primary gingivoperiosteoplasty presented more need for additional bone grafting than those undergoing repair by secondary alveolar bone grafting (28 percent versus 4 percent, respectively; p < 0.05). Residual cleft defect was greater in patients who underwent repair by primary gingivoperiosteoplasty than by secondary alveolar bone grafting (305.8 ± 176.5 mm3 versus 178.6 ± 122.0 mm3, respectively; p < 0.05). Patients who underwent repair by primary gingivoperiosteoplasty showed more residual palatal coronal and palatal apical defects than those who underwent repair by secondary alveolar bone grafting (p < 0.05 and p < 0.001, respectively). Conclusions: In patients with unilateral cleft lip and palate, primary gingivoperiosteoplasty can achieve 72 percent success. Primary gingivoperiosteoplasty results in less bone than secondary alveolar bone grafting, particularly on the palatal apical portion of the previous alveolar cleft. Clinical success is lower with primary gingivoperiosteoplasty than with secondary alveolar bone grafting.

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=84952650158&partnerID=8YFLogxK

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/citedby.url?scp=84952650158&partnerID=8YFLogxK

U2 - 10.1097/PRS.0000000000001897

DO - 10.1097/PRS.0000000000001897

M3 - Article

C2 - 26710026

AN - SCOPUS:84952650158

VL - 137

SP - 218

EP - 227

JO - Plastic and Reconstructive Surgery

JF - Plastic and Reconstructive Surgery

SN - 0032-1052

IS - 1

ER -