4.0 Article

Mandibular Symphyseal Bone Graft for Reconstruction of Alveolar Cleft Defects: Volumetric Assessment With Cone Beam Computed Tomography 1-Year Postsurgery

期刊

CLEFT PALATE CRANIOFACIAL JOURNAL
卷 53, 期 1, 页码 64-72

出版社

SAGE PUBLICATIONS INC
DOI: 10.1597/14-143

关键词

alveolar bone grafting; CBCT; cone beam computed tomography; mandibular bone; volume

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Objective: The aims of this retrospective study were to evaluate the volumetric outcome of mandibular symphyseal bone graft in patients with unilateral cleft lip and palate by estimating the bone fill 1-year postoperatively on cone beam computed tomography. The outcome was assessed in relation to the (1) root development stage of the cleft side canine, (2) presence/absence of a cleft side lateral incisor, and (3) volume size of the preoperative cleft defect. Methods: The alveolar bone defect volume of 32 consecutive unilateral cleft lip and palate patients aged 8 years 1 month to 11 years 11 months was evaluated using a recently defined and standardized protocol. The outcome was calculated as the percentage of bone fill using the formula (VOLpre = VOLpost) / VOLpre) x 100. Results: The preoperative mean alveolar cleft volume was 934 mm 3, and the average percentage bone fill was 87%. There was no significant difference between bone fill and root developmental stage of the cleft-side canine (P = .882) nor presence/absence of the cleft side lateral incisor (P = .803). The size of the cleft defect did not correlate with the bone fill (r = .03, P = .84). Conclusions: Secondary alveolar bone grafting with mandibular symphyseal bone graft in patients with unilateral cleft lip and palate is an attractive procedure assessed from the volumetric outcome using cone beam computed tomography. The 1-year average bone fill of 87% was not significantly influenced by root development stage of the cleft-side canine, presence or the absence of a cleft side lateral incisor, or size of the alveolar defect.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.0
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据