RESUMEN
OBJECTIVE: Determine the main complications of orthognathic surgery in patients with cleft lip and palate. METHODS: PubMed, LILACS, Cochrane, Embase, Scopus, and Google Scholar were systematically reviewed. Studies addressing the complications of orthognathic surgery in patients with cleft lip and palate were included. For the search, the strategy was used with the descriptors extracted from MeSH "Cleft Palate", "Orthognathic Surgery" and "Complications". The Newcastle-Ottawa Scale (NOS) was used to assess the risk of bias in the included studies. Patients of any sex, age, and ethnicity with cleft lip and palate submitted to orthognathic surgery were included in this systematic review. The study followed the PRISMA 2020 standards and was registered in PROSPERO with protocol CRD42020195927. RESULTS: In the initial search, 1090 articles were found and after applying the inclusion and exclusion criteria, eleven studies were selected. The sample consisted of 629 patients who underwent Orthognathic Surgery, with an average age of 21.52 years. The majority of patients (390) presented unilateral transforamen proposals. In total, 150 complications were identified in the included studies, the most frequent being relapse of movement with 77 cases (51.3 %). Other reported, but less frequent, complications were gingival recession with root exposure, premaxillary mobility, intraoperative hemorrhage, fistulas and infection and velopharyngeal impairment. Most included studies did not have a control group, making meta-analysis unfeasible. Seven of the included studies presented a low risk of bias according to the NOS. CONCLUSIONS: Orthognathic surgery in cleft patients is a safe procedure, however it presents particularities and more complications when compared to a non-cleft patient. In this study, the most common complication found was the relapse, and the surgeon must be aware of this complication and others, and try to minimize its negative effects on the patient. We strongly recommend further investigations with detailed methodologies, control groups, well-described criteria for reported complications, and comprehensive sample characteristics to provide higher-quality evidence.
RESUMEN
INTRODUCTION: Defects in the lower border of the mandible may represent an aesthetic problem after mandibular advancement in orthognathic surgery. The use of bone grafts has been reported in the literature as a possibility to reduce these defects in the postoperative period. OBJECTIVE: The objective of this systematic review is to answer the following research question: Is it necessary to use bone grafts to prevent defects at the lower border of the mandible after mandibular advancement? METHODS: The literature search was conducted on MEDLINE via PubMed, Scopus, Central Cochrane, Embase, LILACS, and Sigle via Open Gray up until December 2020. Five studies were eligible for this systematic review, considering the previously established inclusion and exclusion criteria. RESULTS: 1340 mandibular osteotomies were evaluated, with a mean advance of 8 mm, being 510 with bone graft (42 defects), 528 without graft (329 defects), and 302 with an alternative technique (32 defects). Regarding the type of bone graft used, three articles used xenogenous or biomaterial grafts and two allogenous bone grafts. The results of the meta-analysis showed a reduction in the presence of defects in the bone graft group: OR 0.04, 95% CI = 0.01, 0.19; p = 0.0005, (I2 = 87%; p < 0.0001). CONCLUSION: The use of bone grafts seems promising in reducing defects in the lower border of the mandible after mandibular advancement. New controlled prospective studies with a larger number of participants are needed to ensure the effectiveness of this procedure.