4.3 Review

Dental materials for cleft palate repair

Publisher

ELSEVIER
DOI: 10.1016/j.msec.2015.12.019

Keywords

Cleft palate; Synthetic graft; Dental materials; Craniofacial repair; Bone substitute

Funding

  1. Pakistan-UK Fellowship from COMSATS University of information Technology Lahore

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Numerous bone and soft tissue grafting techniques are followed to repair cleft of lip and palate (CLP) defects. In addition to the gold standard surgical interventions involving the use of autogenous grafts, various allogenic and xenogenic graft materials are available for bone regeneration. In an attempt to discover minimally invasive and cost effective treatments for cleft repair, an exceptional growth in synthetic biomedical graft materials have occurred. This study gives an overview of the use of dental materials to repair cleft of lip and palate (CLP). The eligibility criteria for this review were case studies, clinical trials and retrospective studies on the use of various types of dental materials in surgical repair of cleft palate defects. Any data available on the surgical interventions to repair alveolar or palatal cleft, with natural or synthetic graft materials was included in this review. Those datasets with long term clinical follow-up results were referred to as particularly relevant The results provide encouraging evidence in favor of dental and other related biomedical materials to fill the gaps in clefts of lip and palate. The review presents the various bones and soft tissue replacement strategies currently used, tested or explored for the repair of cleft defects. There was little available data on the use of synthetic materials in cleft repair which was a limitation of this study. In conclusion although clinical trials on the use of synthetic materials are currently underway the uses of autologous implants are the preferred treatment methods to date. (C) 2015 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.3
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available