Restricted accessResearch articleFirst published online 2019-4
Effectiveness of Gingivoperiosteoplasty on Alveolar Bone Reconstruction and Facial Growth in Patients With Cleft Lip and Palate: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis
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.
Andlin SobockiATehraniDSkoogV. Long-term influence of infant periosteoplasty on facial growth and occlusion in patients with bilateral cleft lip and palate. J Plast Surg Hand Surg. 2012;46(3-4):229–234.
2.
BenateauHVazquezMPPellerinPVeyssiereA. Alveolar cleft closure managed by primary alveoloplasty. Cleft Palate-Craniofacial J. 2016;53(6):752–753.
3.
BerglandOSembGAbyholmF. Elimination of the residual alveolar cleft by secondary bone grafting and subsequent orthodontic treatment. Cleft Palate J. 1986;23(3):175–205.
4.
BerkowitzS. A comparison of treatment results in complete bilateral cleft lip and palate using a conservative approach versus Millard-Latham PSOT procedure. Semin Orthod. 1996;2(3):169–184.
5.
BerkowitzSMejiaMBystrikA. A comparison of the effects of the Latham-Millard procedure with those of a conservative treatment approach for dental occlusion and facial aesthetics in unilateral and bilateral complete cleft lip and palate: part I. Dental occlusion. Plast Reconstr Surg. 2004;113(1):1–18.
6.
CaganovaVBorskyJSmahelZVeleminskaJ. Facial growth and development in unilateral cleft lip and palate: comparison between secondary alveolar bone grafting and primary periosteoplasty. Cleft Palate-Craniofacial J. 2014;51(1):15–22.
7.
ChanKTHayesCShustermanSMullikenJBWillLA. The effects of active infant orthopedics on occlusal relationships in unilateral complete cleft lip and palate. Cleft Palate Craniofac J. 2003;40(5):511–517.
8.
FeichtingerMMossböckRKärcherH. Assessment of bone resorption after secondary alveolar bone grafting using three-dimensional computed tomography: a three-year study. Cleft Palate-Craniofacial J. 2007;44(2):142–148.
9.
FlinnWLongRGarattiniGSembG. A multicenter outcomes assessment of five-year-old patients with unilateral cleft lip and palate. Cleft Palate Craniofac J. 2006;43(3):253–258.
10.
GrisiusTMSpolyarJJacksonITBello-RojasGDajaniK. Assessment of cleft lip and palate patients treated with presurgical orthopedic correction and either primary bone grafts, gingivoperiosteoplasty, or without alveolar grafting procedures. J Craniofac Surg. 2006;17(3):468–473.
11.
GuyattGHOxmanADVistGEKunzRFalck-YtterYAlonso-CoelloPSchünemannHJ; GRADE Working Group. Rating quality of evidence and strength of recommendations: GRADE: an emerging consensus on rating quality of evidence and strength of recommendations. Br Med J. 2008;336(7650):924–926.
12.
HanKParkJChoiJSonD. Long-term outcomes of simplified gingivoperiosteoplasty performed at the time of hard palatal closure: a review of 55 alveolar clefts. J Plast Reconstr Aesthetic Surg. 2016;69(11):e217–e224.
13.
HellquistR. Early maxillary orthopedics in relation to maxillary cleft repair by periosteoplasty. Cleft Palate J. 1971;8:36–55.
14.
HellquistRLinder-AronsonSNorlingMPontenBStenbergT. Dental abnormalities in patients with alveolar clefts, operated upon with or without primary periosteoplasty. Eur J Orthod. 1979;1(3):169–180.
15.
HellquistRPontenB. Influence of infant periosteoplasty on facial growth and dental occlusion in complete unilateral cleft-lip and palate from age 5 to 8. Cleft Palate J. 1979;13(2):305–312.
16.
HellquistRSkoogT. The influence of primary periosteoplasty on maxillary growth and deciduous occlusion in cases of complete unilateral cleft lip and palate. A longitudinal study from infancy to the age of 5. Scand J Plast Reconstr Surg. 1976;10(3):197–208.
17.
HellquistRSvardstromKPontenB. A longitudinal study of delayed periosteoplasty to the cleft alveolus. Cleft Palate J. 1983;20(4):277–288.
18.
HenkelKOGundlachKK. Analysis of primary gingivoperiosteoplasty in alveolar cleft repair. Part I: facial growth. J Craniomaxillofac Surg. 1997;25(5):266–269.
19.
HenkelKOGundlachK. Gingivoperiosteoplasty according to Millard. Alternative to osteoplasty of alveolar clefts [in German]. Mund Kiefer Gesichtschir. 2002;6(4):261–265.
20.
HenkelKOGundlachK. What effect does the Latham device have on craniofacial growth in uni- and bilateral clefts of the lip and palate? [in German]. Mund Kiefer Gesichtschir. 1998;2(2):55–57.
21.
HsiehCH-YKoEW-CChenPK-THuangC-S. The effect of gingivoperiosteoplasty on facial growth in patients with complete unilateral cleft lip and palate. Cleft Palate-Craniofacial J. 2010;47(5):439–446.
22.
JabbariFHakeliusMMThorALIReiserEASkoogVTNowinskiDJ. Skoog primary periosteoplasty versus secondary alveolar bone grafting in unilateral cleft lip and alveolus. Plast Reconstr Surg. 2017;139(1):137–148.
23.
KangNH. Current methods for the treatment of alveolar cleft. Arch Plast Surg. 2017;44(3):188–193.
24.
LarsonOIdebergMNordinK-E. Early bone grafting in complete cleft lip and palate cases following maxillofacial orthopedics: IV. A radiographic study of the incorporation of the bone grafts. Scand J Plast Reconstr Surg. 1983;17(2):93–98.
25.
LeeCTHGraysonBHCuttingCBBrechtLELinWY. Prepubertal midface growth in unilateral cleft lip and palate following alveolar molding and gingivoperiosteoplasty. Cleft Palate-Craniofacial J. 2004;41(4):375–380.
26.
LongREJPaternoMVinsonB. Effect of cuspid positioning in the cleft at the time of secondary alveolar bone grafting on eventual graft success. Cleft Palate Craniofac J. 1996;33(3):225–230.
27.
MaticDBPowerSM. Evaluating the success of gingivoperiosteoplasty versus secondary bone grafting in patients with unilateral clefts. Plast Reconstr Surg. 2008a;121(4):1343–1353.
28.
MaticDBPowerSM. The effects of gingivoperiosteoplasty following alveolar molding with a pin-retained Latham appliance versus secondary bone grafting on midfacial growth in patients with unilateral clefts. Plast Reconstr Surg. 2008b;122(3):863–870.
29.
MeazziniMCCapassoEMorabitoAGarattiniGBrusatiR. Comparison of growth results in patients with unilateral cleft lip and palate after early secondary gingivoalveoloplasty and secondary bone grafting: 20 years follow up. Scand J Plast Reconstr Surg Hand Surg. 2008;42(6):290–295.
30.
MeazziniMCRossettiGGarattiniGSembGBrusatiR. Early secondary gingivo-alveolo-plasty in the treatment of unilateral cleft lip and palate patients: 20 years experience. J Cranio-Maxillofacial Surg. 2010;38(3):185–191.
31.
MillardDRLathamRHuifenXSpiroSMorovicC. Cleft lip and palate treated by presurgical orthopedics, gingivoperiosteoplasty, and lip adhesion (POPLA) compared with previous lip adhesion method: a preliminary study of serial dental casts. Plast Reconstr Surg Reconstr Surg. 1999;103(6):1630–1644.
32.
MoherDLiberatiATetzlaffJAltmanDG. Preferred reporting items for systematic reviews and meta-analyses: the PRISMA statement. BMJ. 2009;339:b2535.
33.
NightingaleCWitherowHReidFDAEdlerR. Comparative reproducibility of three methods of radiographic assessment of alveolar bone grafting. Eur J Orthod. 2003;25(1):35–41.
34.
PfeiferTMGraysonBHCuttingCB. Nasoalveolar molding and gingivoperiosteoplasty versus alveolar bone graft: an outcome analysis of costs in the treatment of unilateral cleft alveolus. Cleft Palate Craniofac J. 2002;39(1):26–29.
35.
PowerSMMaticDB. Gingivoperiosteoplasty following alveolar molding with a Latham appliance versus secondary bone grafting: the effects on bone production and midfacial growth in patients with bilateral clefts. Plast Reconstr Surg. 2009;124(2):573–582.
36.
RenkielskaAWojtaszek-SlominskaADobkeM. Early cleft lip repair in children with unilateral complete cleft lip and palate a case against primary alveolar repair. Ann Plast Surg. 2005;54(6):598–599.
37.
SantiagoPEGraysonBHCuttingCGianoutsosMPBrechtLEKwonSM. Reduced need for alveolar bone grafting by presurgical orthopedics and primary gingivoperiosteoplasty. Cleft Palate Craniofac J. 1998;35(1):77–80.
38.
SatoYGraysonBHGarfinkleJSBarillasIMakiKCuttingCB. Success rate of gingivoperiosteoplasty with and without secondary bone grafts compared with secondary alveolar bone grafts alone. Plast Reconstr Surg. 2008;121(4):1356–1367.
39.
SmahelZMullerovaZ. Effects of primary periosteoplasty on facial growth in unilateral cleft lip and palate: 10-year follow up. Cleft Palate J1988;25(4):356–361.
40.
SkoogT. The use of periosteal flaps in the repair of clefts of the primary palate. Cleft Palate J. 1965;2(4):332–339.
41.
SterneJHernánMReevesBSavovićJBerkmanNViswanathanMHenryDAltmanDGAnsariMTBoutronI. Risk Of Bias In Non-randomized Studies of Interventions (ROBINS-I): detailed guidance. BMJ. 2016;355:i4919.
42.
SuomalainenAÅbergTRautioJHurmerintaK. Cone beam computed tomography in the assessment of alveolar bone grafting in children with unilateral cleft lip and palate. Eur J Orthod. 2014;36(5):603–611.
43.
TanSPKAllareddyVBruunRAMullikenJBSullivanSRPegueroOJCooperJSPadwaBLGerleinEJCookEF. Effect of infant surgical orthopedic treatment on facial growth in preadolescent children with unilateral and bilateral complete cleft lip and palate. Oral Surg Oral Med Oral Pathol Oral Radiol. 2015;120(3):291–298.
44.
WangY-CLiaoY-FChenPK-TBirgfeldCBRobertsS. Comparative outcomes of primary gingivoperiosteoplasty and secondary alveolar bone grafting in patients with unilateral cleft lip and palate. Plast Reconstr Surg. 2016;137(1):218–227.
45.
WitherowHCoxSJonesECarrR. A new scale to assess radiographic success of secondary alveolar bone grafts. Palate craniofacial J. 2002;39(3):255–260.
46.
Wojtaszek-SlominskaARenkielskaADobkeMGosmanASlominskiW. Orthodontic characteristics of maxillary arch deficiency in 5-year-old patients undergoing unilateral cleft lip and palate repair with and without early gingivoplasty. J Craniomaxillofac Surg. 2010;38(3):155–159.
47.
WoodRGraysonBCuttingC. Gingivoperiosteoplasty and midfacial growth. Cleft Palate Craniofac J. 1997;34(1):17–20.
48.
YeeKSNguyenPDAndrewsBTLeeJCBradleyJP. Abstract 4: decreased secondary bone grafting but poorer midface growth after primary alveolar cleft repair with gingivoperiosteoplasty and rhBMP-2. Plast Reconstr Surg. 2014;133(suppl 3):63.
49.
ZemannWMossböckRKärcherHKoželjV. Sagittal growth of the facial skeleton of 6-year-old children with a complete unilateral cleft of lip, alveolus and palate treated with two different protocols. J Craniomaxillofacial Surg. 2007;35(8):343–349.
Supplementary Material
Please find the following supplemental material available below.
For Open Access articles published under a Creative Commons License, all supplemental material carries the same license as the article it is associated with.
For non-Open Access articles published, all supplemental material carries a non-exclusive license, and permission requests for re-use of supplemental material or any part of supplemental material shall be sent directly to the copyright owner as specified in the copyright notice associated with the article.
