Secondary alveolar cleft grafting using autogenous mineralized plasmatic matrix (MPM) versus cancellous bone particles derived from anterior iliac crest.

OBJECTIVE: The essential concern of alveolar cleft grafting in patients of cleft lip and palate at the mixed dentition phase is to gain bone within the cleft area that provides closure of the oronasal communication with continuous and stable maxilla for future cleft teeth eruption or implantation. This study aimed to compare the effectiveness of mineralized plasmatic matrix (MPM) versus cancellous bone particles harvested from anterior iliac crest in secondary alveolar cleft grafting. PATIENTS AND METHODS: This prospective randomized controlled trial was conducted on ten patients with unilateral complete alveolar cleft requiring cleft reconstruction. Patients were randomly divided into two equal groups; group (1) included 5 patients who received particulate cancellous bone derived from anterior iliac crest (control group) and group (2) included 5 patients who received MPM graft prepared from cancellous bone derived from anterior iliac crest (study group). All patients received CBCT preoperatively, immediately postoperatively and after 6 months. On the CBCT, graft's volume, labio-palatal width, and height were measured and compared. RESULTS: The outcome of the studied patients 6 months postoperatively showed that the control group had significant decrease in the graft volume, labio-palatal width, and height compared to the study group. CONCLUSION: MPM allowed for the integration of bone graft particles inside a fibrin network, which offers positional stability of the bone particles, thus preserving their shape with subsequent "in situ" immobilization of the graft components. This conclusion was reflected positively in terms of maintained graft volume, width, and height compared to that of the control group. CLINICAL RELEVANCE: MPM allowed for maintenance of grafted ridge volume, width, and height.

Maxillary stability in patients with skeletal class III malocclusion treated by bimaxillary orthognathic surgery: comparison of mandible-first and maxilla-first approaches in a randomised controlled study.

The maxilla-first approach has been the standard orthognathic sequence for many years, however, with the evolution of rigid internal fixation and to eliminate any errors that could be encountered during preoperative bite registration, the mandible-first approach has become an effective treatment modality for bimaxillary orthognathic surgery. Would the maxilla-first or mandible-first orthognathic sequence in bimaxillary orthognathic surgery result in more maxillary stability in patients with skeletal class III malocclusion? Twenty-four patients with skeletal class III malocclusion were selected from the outpatient clinic of the Oral and Maxillofacial Surgery Department, Faculty of Dentistry, Cairo University. Patients were randomly divided into two equal-sized groups: the maxilla-first approach (group I), and the mandible-first approach (group II). All patients underwent cone-beam computed tomography before, immediately after (P1), and 6months after surgery (P2). Virtual planning included designing the virtual cuts and the intermediate and final splints. Both splints were three-dimensionally printed. In both approaches, hard and soft tissue landmarks were used as reference points to evaluate maxillary stability, which was calculated by subtracting P2 values from P1 values. All measures were statistically evaluated as numerical values of means and standard deviations. The differences between the radiographic measurements of the two groups were not statistically significant except for the soft tissue inclination at the nasal tip. The mandible-first approach in bimaxillary orthognathic surgery is a reliable method for achieving high maxillary stability.