Your browser doesn't support javascript.
loading
Impact of a new combined preoperative cleft assessment on dental implant success in patients with cleft and palate: a retrospective study.
Savoldelli, Charles; Bailleux, Sonanda; Chamorey, Emmanuel; Vandersteen, Clair; Lerhe, Barbara; Afota, Franck.
Afiliação
  • Savoldelli C; Oral and Maxillo-Facial Surgery Department, Head and Neck Institute, University Hospital of Nice, 30 Avenue Valombrose, 06100, Nice, France. savoldelli.c@chu-nice.fr.
  • Bailleux S; Paediatric Maxillofacial Surgery and ENT Department, Lenval Hospital, Nice, France. savoldelli.c@chu-nice.fr.
  • Chamorey E; Paediatric Maxillofacial Surgery and ENT Department, Lenval Hospital, Nice, France.
  • Vandersteen C; Clinical Research, Innovation and Statistics Department, Centre Antoine Lacassagne, Nice, France.
  • Lerhe B; Oral and Maxillo-Facial Surgery Department, Head and Neck Institute, University Hospital of Nice, 30 Avenue Valombrose, 06100, Nice, France.
  • Afota F; Oral and Maxillo-Facial Surgery Department, Head and Neck Institute, University Hospital of Nice, 30 Avenue Valombrose, 06100, Nice, France.
BMC Oral Health ; 22(1): 73, 2022 03 15.
Article em En | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-35291983
ABSTRACT

BACKGROUND:

Bone height assessment alone is frequently used to guide rehabilitation choice, without consideration for soft tissues or adjacent teeth. This study aimed to evaluate the impact of different preoperative cleft assessments on implant success and patient satisfaction.

METHODS:

The study involved a retrospective assessment of records from 40 patients with cleft lip and palate (CLP). The alveolar cleft score (ACS; clinical criteria), interdental alveolar bone height (IABH) score (radiological criteria), patient compliance score (dental hygiene, medical visit observance, and smoking), and a novel combined score (IABH-ACS-Compliance) were assessed from patient records. Patients who required prosthetic tooth rehabilitation in the cleft dental arch space were included. Twenty-six patients (Group 1) were treated with dental implants, and 14 patients (Group 2) selected another prosthetic option (fixed prosthodontics, removal prosthesis), orthodontic space closure, or no rehabilitation. The main outcomes measured were relative implant success (no implant loss involving marginal bone loss ≤ 1.9 mm) for patients treated with dental implant therapy (Group 1) and patient satisfaction for all patients (Groups 1 and 2).

RESULTS:

Forty dental implants were placed in the patients in Group 1. Four implants in four patients (Group 1 relative failure, RF) were lost (implant survival rate of 90%) after 36 (± 12.4) months of follow-up. Twenty-two patients who received implants belonged to the relative implant success group (Group 1 RS). The average "IABH-ACS-Compliance" scores were significantly different (p < 0.05) 16.90 ± 2.35 and 12.75 ± 0.43 for the Group 1 RS and RF groups, respectively.

CONCLUSIONS:

Preoperative cleft parameters have an impact on relative implant success and patient satisfaction. The new cleft assessment combined-score ("IABH-ACS-Compliance") allows an accurate selection of cleft cases eligible for dental implants, thereby improving postoperative outcomes.
Assuntos
Palavras-chave

Texto completo: 1 Coleções: 01-internacional Base de dados: MEDLINE Assunto principal: Implantes Dentários / Fenda Labial / Fissura Palatina Tipo de estudo: Observational_studies Limite: Humans Idioma: En Revista: BMC Oral Health Assunto da revista: ODONTOLOGIA Ano de publicação: 2022 Tipo de documento: Article País de afiliação: França

Texto completo: 1 Coleções: 01-internacional Base de dados: MEDLINE Assunto principal: Implantes Dentários / Fenda Labial / Fissura Palatina Tipo de estudo: Observational_studies Limite: Humans Idioma: En Revista: BMC Oral Health Assunto da revista: ODONTOLOGIA Ano de publicação: 2022 Tipo de documento: Article País de afiliação: França