Mid Versus Late Secondary Alveolar Cleft Grafting Using Iliac Crest Corticocancellous Bone Graft

Jeyaraj, Priya; Sahoo, Nanda Kishore; Chakranarayan, Ashish

doi:10.1007/s12663-013-0509-4

Cited by 15 publications

(7 citation statements)

References 22 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…This frequent occurrence may be attributed to the cleft itself or to the early surgical correction of the defects. 5 Given that the timing of the primary lip and secondary palate repair: 3-6 and 9-12 months, respectively 7 coincides with the crown completion of anterior primary teeth and the calcification of upper permanent incisors, surgical manipulation and tissue scarring can affect both stages in primary and permanent anterior teeth. Surgery can also obliterate initiation and calcification of posterior permanent tooth buds or cause displacements and rotations of teeth, possibly explaining the occurrence of agenesis of posterior permanent teeth (i.e., premolars), impactions, and dental malpositions.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Prevalence of Dental Anomalies in the Patient with Cleft Lip and Palate Visiting a Tertiary Care Hospital

et al. 2020

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Introduction: Dental anomaly is one of the major problems in a child born with cleft lip and palate. These anomalies have deleterious effects on the dentition leading to aesthetic problems, impairment of mastication andimproper phonation. The aim of our study was to find out the prevalence of dental anomalies in patient with cleft lip and/or palate radiographically. Methods: A descriptive cross-sectional study was conducted from the 208 radiographs, collected by the convenience samplingtechnique with cleft lip and/or palate in Department of Burns, Plastic and Reconstructive Surgery, Nepal Cleft and Burn Centre, Kirtipur Hospital from January 2017 to July 2019.Ethical clearance for the study was obtained from Institutional Review Committee. Demographic data were collected and radiographs were evaluated for possible dental anomalies. Data obtained were entered and analysed in Statistical Package for Social Sciences version 23. Results: Dental anomalies were highly prevalent among cleft lip and palate patients with at least one anomaly present in 188 (90.4%) of patients with male 120 (57.4%) presenting more anomalies than female 88 (42.6%) population. The most common anomaly was dental agenesis 161 (77.9%). The prevalence of positional anomaly, morphological anomaly and supernumerary teeth were found to be 54 (26%), 33 (15.9%) and 20 (10%) respectively. Lateral incisor showed the highest incidence of agenesis among all other missing teeth 223 (65.2%). Conclusions: The prevalence of dental anomalies among patients with cleft lip and/or palate was found to be high. Tooth agenesis was the most common anomaly observed in the study with lateral incisor having the highest incidence of agenesis.

show abstract

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Prevalence of Dental Anomalies in the Patient with Cleft Lip and Palate Visiting a Tertiary Care Hospital

et al. 2020

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Risk factors include those related to the cleft itself and/or secondary to surgical repair, such as deficiencies in embryonic tissue to form adequate dental structures, abnormal formation of specific muscles of facial expression, and excess soft tissue scarring leading to impaired circumoral soft tissue movements, oral continence, oral access and hygiene, speech production, and eating difficulties (Trotman et al 2000;Trotman et al 2005;Trotman et al 2007;Barlow et al 2012). The timing of the primary and secondary surgical repairs (3 to 6 and 9 to 12 mo, respectively; Ziak et al 2010;Jeyaraj et al 2014) also coincides with the crown completion of the primary anterior teeth and calcification of the maxillary permanent incisors, which may result in insults to the developing tooth, causing dental anomalies such as hypoplasia and leading to weakened tooth structure (Ash 1993;Howe et al 2015). Furthermore, children with clefting may have poor oral hygiene habits due to poor self-motivation, lack of family support, difficulty in cleansing malpositioned teeth, and prolonged use of orthodontic appliances.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Dental Decay Phenotype in Nonsyndromic Orofacial Clefting

et al. 2017

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Although children with oral clefts have a higher risk for dental anomalies when compared with the general population, prior studies have shown conflicting results regarding their dental decay risk. Also, few studies have assessed dental decay risk in unaffected relatives of children with clefts. Thus, the question of increased risk of dental decay in individuals with oral clefts or their unaffected relatives is still open for empirical investigation. This study characterizes dental decay in the largest international cohort to date of children with nonsyndromic clefts and their relatives, as compared with controls, and it addresses whether families with oral clefts have a significantly increased risk for dental decay versus the general population. A total of 3,326 subjects were included: 639 case probands, 1,549 unaffected relatives, and 1,138 controls. Decay was identified from in-person dental examinations or intraoral photographs. Case-control differences were tested with regression analysis. No significant differences were shown in percentage decayed and filled teeth and decayed teeth in the primary dentition (dft, dt) and permanent dentition (DFT, DT) in cases versus controls. In the cleft region, no significant differences were seen in primary or permanent decay (dt, DT) when compared with controls. No difference was found with regard to cleft type and percentage dft, dt, DFT, and DT in case probands. Nonsignificant differences were found in unaffected siblings and parents versus controls (primary and permanent dentitions). Collectively, these findings indicate that individuals with nonsyndromic oral clefts and their families do not have a higher dental decay risk as compared with the general population. These results suggest that either genetic or environmental factors underlying a higher susceptibility for dental anomalies do not increase caries risk or that the seemingly higher risk for dental decay associated with increased dental anomalies in case probands may be superseded by possible greater access to dental care.

show abstract

“…Given that the timing of the primary lip and secondary palate repair (3-6 and 9-12 months, respectively) (Ziak et al 2010;Jeyaraj et al 2014) coincides with the crown completion of anterior primary teeth and the calcification of upper permanent incisors, surgical manipulation and tissue scarring can also affect both stages in primary and permanent anterior teeth. Also, surgery can obliterate initiation and calcification of posterior permanent tooth buds or cause displacements and rotations of teeth, possibly explaining the occurrence of hypoplastic maxillary anterior teeth (both primary and permanent), agenesis of posterior permanent teeth (i.e., premolars), impactions, and dental malpositions (Olin 1964;Ranta 1986;Spauwen et al 1993;Lekkas et al 2000).…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Spectrum of Dental Phenotypes in Nonsyndromic Orofacial Clefting

et al. 2015

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Children with oral clefts show a wide range of dental anomalies, adding complexity to understanding the phenotypic spectrum of orofacial clefting. The evidence is mixed, however, on whether the prevalence of dental anomalies is elevated in unaffected relatives and is mostly based on small samples. In the largest international cohort to date of children with nonsyndromic clefts, their relatives, and controls, this study characterizes the spectrum of cleft-related dental anomalies and evaluates whether families with clefting have a significantly higher risk for such anomalies compared with the general population. A total of 3,811 individuals were included: 660 cases with clefts, 1,922 unaffected relatives, and 1,229 controls. Dental anomalies were identified from in-person dental exams or intraoral photographs, and case-control differences were tested using χ2 statistics. Cases had higher rates of dental anomalies in the maxillary arch than did controls for primary (21% vs. 4%, P = 3 × 10−8) and permanent dentitions (51% vs. 8%, P = 4 × 10−62) but not in the mandible. Dental anomalies were more prevalent in cleft lip with cleft palate than other cleft types. More anomalies were seen in the ipsilateral side of the cleft. Agenesis and tooth displacements were the most common dental anomalies found in case probands for primary and permanent dentitions. Compared with controls, unaffected siblings (10% vs. 2%, P = 0.003) and parents (13% vs. 7%, P = 0.001) showed a trend for increased anomalies of the maxillary permanent dentition. Yet, these differences were nonsignificant after multiple-testing correction, suggesting genetic heterogeneity in some families carrying susceptibility to both overt clefts and dental anomalies. Collectively, the findings suggest that most affected families do not have higher genetic risk for dental anomalies than the general population and that the higher prevalence of anomalies in cases is primarily a physical consequence of the cleft and surgical interventions.

show abstract

Mid Versus Late Secondary Alveolar Cleft Grafting Using Iliac Crest Corticocancellous Bone Graft

Abstract: Precise timing for undertaking alveolar cleft repair may not be all that crucial for a successful alveolar cleft grafting procedure.

Cited by 15 publications

References 22 publications

Prevalence of Dental Anomalies in the Patient with Cleft Lip and Palate Visiting a Tertiary Care Hospital

Prevalence of Dental Anomalies in the Patient with Cleft Lip and Palate Visiting a Tertiary Care Hospital

Dental Decay Phenotype in Nonsyndromic Orofacial Clefting

Spectrum of Dental Phenotypes in Nonsyndromic Orofacial Clefting

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About