Effectiveness of Gingivoperiosteoplasty on Alveolar Bone Reconstruction and Facial Growth in Patients With Cleft Lip and Palate: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.

OBJECTIVE: The aim of the systematic review is to evaluate the effects of gingivoperiosteoplasty (GPP) on alveolar bone quality and facial growth in patients with cleft lip and palate (CLP). SEARCH METHODS: Electronic and manual search was done up to October 2017. ELIGIBILITY CRITERIA: Clinical and observational studies that compared GPP to control; patients without GPP evaluated either before or after the age for secondary bone graft (SBG). DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Studies selection was done by 2 authors independently. Risk ratio and mean difference with 95% confidence intervals (CIs) were calculated using random-effects models. RESULTS: Thirteen articles were included in the review. All studies were at high risk of bias. Poorer alveolar bone quality was found in the GPP group compared to the SBG group. The pooled data showed a statistically significant increase in the incidence of Bergland type III in the GPP group compared to SBG (risk ratio: 11.51, 95% CI: 3.39-35.15). As for facial growth, GPP group resulted in a more retruded maxillary position (as indicated by "Sella-Nasion-Subspinale" angle [SNA value]) compared to control group by -1.36 (CI: -4.21 to 1.49) and -1.66 (CI: -2.48 to -0.84) when evaluated at 5 and 10 years, respectively. The protocol for presurgical infant orthopedics used in conjunction with the GPP procedure might have affected the results of the alveolar bone and facial growth outcomes. CONCLUSIONS: Definitive conclusions about the effectiveness of GPP cannot be drawn. Very weak evidence indicated that GPP might not be an efficient method for alveolar bone reconstruction for patients with unilateral and bilateral CLP. Gingivoperiosteoplasty surgery could lead to maxillary growth inhibition in patients with CLP.

Effect of micro-osteoperforation on the rate of canine retraction: a split-mouth randomized controlled trial.

BACKGROUND: Among the recent modalities introduced to accelerate orthodontic tooth movement (OTM) is micro-osteoperforations (MOPs), in other words, bone puncturing. The aim of this split-mouth trial was to investigate the effects of MOPs on the rate of OTM. METHODS: Eighteen patients requiring bilateral first premolar extraction and upper canine retraction with maximum anchorage were enrolled in this study. Immediately before canine retraction, three MOPs were randomly allocated to either the right or left sides. MOPs were performed using a mini-screw (1.8 mm diameter, 8 mm length) distal to the canine. Canine retraction continued for 4 months. Data were collected from monthly digital models, in addition to pre- and post-retraction maxillary CBCT images. The primary outcomes were the rate of canine retraction per month and the total distance moved by the canines. The secondary outcomes were the effect of MOPs on anchorage loss, canine root resorption, and pain. RESULTS: The mean rate of canine retraction in both sides was 0.99 ± 0.3 mm/month. The total distance moved by the canine cusp tip was greater in the MOP than the control side (mean difference 0.06 ± 0.7 mm), which was statistically insignificant (P > 0.05(. The total distances moved by the canine center and apex were significantly greater in the MOP than the control side (mean difference 0.37 ± 0.63 mm (P < 0.05) and 0.47 ± 0.56 mm (P < 0.01) respectively). Insignificant differences were detected regarding anchorage loss and root resorption between both sides (P > 0.05). Mild to moderate pain was experienced following the MOP procedure, which rapidly faded away within 1 week. CONCLUSIONS: Micro-osteoperforations were not able to accelerate the rate of canine retraction; however, it seemed to facilitate root movement.

Transverse Malocclusion and Temporomandibular Disorders: Verification of the Controversy.

AIMS: To investigate the transverse dental and skeletal aspects of malocclusion in a sample of temporomandibular disorders (TMD) patients and to assess the correlations of these aspects with the signs and symptoms of TMD. METHODS: A total of 150 TMD patients diagnosed according to the Diagnostic Criteria for TMD were divided into five groups: Group 1 (myalgia), Group 2 (disc displacement with reduction [DDWR]), Group 3 (disc displacement without reduction [DDWOR]), Group 4 (degenerative disorders), and Group 5 (subluxation). The transverse occlusion was assessed clinically, and any posterior crossbite present was recorded. Using cone beam computed tomography, several skeletal and dental transverse measurements were evaluated in each patient to diagnose the presence of skeletal posterior crossbite and possible facial and dental asymmetry. One-way analysis of variance was used to compare the means of more than two groups. Pearson correlation coefficient was used to assess the correlations of quantitative continuous variables. Significance level was considered at P < .05. RESULTS: Posterior crossbite was found in only 18% of the sample, while 28.7% of the subjects showed transverse skeletal crossbite. All skeletal and dental measurements evaluating symmetry showed no statistically significant differences between the groups except for the occlusal plane cant, which was significantly higher in Group 2 compared to Group 1. Dental and skeletal transverse discrepancies showed no correlation with TMD. CONCLUSIONS: Transverse malocclusion is not correlated with the signs and symptoms of TMD.

Malocclusion and Temporomandibular Disorders: Verification of the Controversy.

AIMS: To investigate the dental and skeletal aspects of malocclusion in the anteroposterior and vertical dimensions in a sample of temporomandibular disorders (TMD) patients and to correlate these aspects with the signs and symptoms of TMD. METHODS: A total of 150 TMD patients were divided into five groups according to the Diagnostic Criteria for TMD: Group 1 = myalgia (M); Group 2 = disc displacement with reduction (DDWR); Group 3 = disc displacement without reduction (DDWOR); Group 4 = degenerative disorders (D); and Group 5 = subluxation (S). Molar and canine relations, overjet, overbite, occlusal guidance, occlusal interferences, and centric slides were recorded for each patient, and the skeletal craniofacial patterns were analyzed for each patient using cone beam computed tomography. One-way analysis of variance was used to compare the variable means of the different groups. Pearson correlation coefficient was used to assess the correlations of quantitative continuous variables. Significance level was considered at P < .05. RESULTS: No significant difference was found among the groups regarding any aspects of dental occlusion except for mediotrusive interferences, which were significantly higher in Group 3 (DDWOR) (P = .02). Regarding skeletal craniofacial pattern, Group 4 (D) had significantly smaller mean ± standard deviation sella-nasion-B (SNB) point angle (74.31 ± 3.04 degrees) than Group 3 (DDWOR) (78.04 ± 4.88 degrees), and Group 1 (M) showed the greatest SNB angle (79.87 ± 3.73 degrees) (P = .03). Group 3 (DDWOR) showed significantly greater mean mandibular plane/SN angle (39.56 ± 6.19 degrees) than Group 1 (M) (34.73 ± 5.65 degrees) (P = .04). Relations between occlusal variables and TMD parameters were nonsignificant. CONCLUSION: This study provides robust evidence to diminish the TMD-malocclusion association, especially in myogenic types of TMD.