Premium
Comparison of early and conventional autogenous secondary alveolar bone graft in children with cleft lip and palate: A systematic review
Author(s) -
Pinheiro Fabio Henrique de Sa Leitao,
Drummond Robert John,
Frota Carolina Martins,
Bartzela Theodosia N.,
Santos Patricia Bittencourt
Publication year - 2020
Publication title -
orthodontics and craniofacial research
Language(s) - English
Resource type - Journals
SCImago Journal Rank - 0.664
H-Index - 55
eISSN - 1601-6343
pISSN - 1601-6335
DOI - 10.1111/ocr.12394
Subject(s) - medicine , dentistry , radiography , cochrane collaboration , dental alveolus , randomized controlled trial , orthodontics , surgery , cochrane library
Purpose The literature is scarce on studies comparing secondary alveolar bone graft (SABG) performed early at approximately 5‐6 years and at the conventional time at 9‐11 years. This systematic literature review(SLR) aimed to compare clinical outcomes after two different timings of SABG in children with unilateral and bilateral cleft lip and palate. Methods The inclusion criteria were autogenous iliac grafts and the following study designs: case control, cohort, clinical controlled trial (CCT), randomized CCT (RCCT), and previous SLRs. Ovid MEDLINE, Ovid EMBASE, Web of Science, Scopus, Cochrane, ProQuest and Google Scholar were the primary databases. Two calibrated examiners worked independently to select the articles. The MINORS evaluation method for surgical non‐RCTs was used to assess for quality. Results 1,111 articles were retrieved and 19 qualified. Different clinical and radiographic outcomes such as bone level, periodontal status, canine eruption and cleft‐side tooth survival were evaluated by different assessment methods such as CBCT volume, computed tomography, periodontal evaluation, panoramic, intraoral radiographs, and Bergland scale. No RCCT or meta‐analysis was found. None of the studies received the ideal score, which is 16 for non‐comparison studies and 24 for comparison studies. Conclusion Methodological variation, lack of standardization for initial cleft dimension and low‐quality level rendered a fair comparison unfeasible. Although further studies are necessary, it can be assumed that early SABG also can be an acceptable option, but this was based on a single study with a reasonable level of evidence.