4.3 Review

Three-dimensional radiological evaluation of secondary alveolar bone grafting in cleft lip and palate patients: a systematic review

Journal

DENTOMAXILLOFACIAL RADIOLOGY
Volume 48, Issue 1, Pages -

Publisher

BRITISH INST RADIOLOGY
DOI: 10.1259/dmfr.20180047

Keywords

systematic review; cleft lip and palate; secondary alveolar bone grafting; cone beam computed tomography

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Objectives: To systematically review the existing literature on the three-dimensional (3D) radiological evaluation of secondary alveolar bone grafting (SABG) in cleft lip and palate (CLP) patients, with specific interest in 3D imaging protocols and assessment methods. Methods: A comprehensive literature search on PubMed, Embase and the Cochrane Library was conducted. Included publications concerned 3D imaging for evaluation of SABG in CLP patients while articles about primary or tertiary bone grafting or using of two-dimensional images only were excluded. Study quality was evaluated using the Methodological Index for Non-Randomized Studies or the Cochrane Collaboration tool for assessing risk of bias. Results: The search yielded 1735 citations, of which 38 met the inclusion criteria. We noticed a large variability in imaging protocols and bone graft evaluation methods between studies. Most articles were observational studies with medium to low methodological quality, except for the one randomised clinical trial having a low risk of bias. Conclusions: There is a lack of prospective, controlled trials based on a consistent imaging protocol with a sufficiently long follow-up period. A pressing need exists for the development of a consistent optimized imaging protocol for diagnosis and follow up of SABG in CLP patients. Although 3D evaluation methods seem to be more precise than two-dimensional methods, we should be careful when comparing the outcomes arising from different 3D measuring techniques.

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