The main objective of the randomized controlled trial (RCT) was to evaluate the short-term osteogenic effects of mandibular cortex bone (MCB) versus iliac cancellous bone (ICB) after secondary alveolar bone graft.
Design
RCT.
Setting
Department of Oral and Cranio-Maxillofacial Surgery in the Shanghai Ninth People's Hospital from September 1, 2020, to August 31, 2023.
Patients
Patients with unilateral alveolar cleft.
Interventions
Those who met the inclusion criteria were randomly assigned to receive either MCB or ICB grafting. Clinical and radiographic examinations were performed preoperatively and immediately, as well as at 1, 3, 6, 12, 18, and 24 months postoperatively.
Main Outcome Measure(s)
The bone resorption rate was measured 6 months postoperatively. Clinical observations included adverse events and hospitalization details including length of surgery, intraoperative bleeding, length of stay, and costs.
Results
A total of 28 patients were included, with 16 allocated to the MCB group and 12 to the ICB group. The bone resorption rate in the MCB group (45.20 ± 29.81%) was significantly lower than that in the ICB group (74.87 ± 18.48%) (P = 0.005). Two adverse events were reported in the MCB group. The MCB group had significantly greater costs (P < 0.001), a significantly shorter length of stay (P < 0.001), and a significantly longer duration of surgery (P = 0.026). However, there were no significant differences in terms of intraoperative bleeding.
Conclusion
Compared with ICB, MCB demonstrated a slower bone resorption rate in the short term for treating secondary alveolar cleft in this study, albeit with increased surgical time and costs.
ParkJJRochlinDHParsaeiYShetyePRWitekLLeuchtPRabbaniPSFloresRL. Bone tissue engineering strategies for alveolar cleft: Review of preclinical results and guidelines for future studies. Cleft Palate-Cran J. 2023;60(11):1450-1461. doi:10.1177/10556656221104954
2.
HorswellBBHendersonJM. Secondary osteoplasty of the alveolar cleft defect. J Oral Maxillofac Surg. 2003;61(9):1082-1090. doi:10.1016/s0278-2391(03)00322-7
3.
SudhakarKNVMohantyRSinghV. Evaluation of donor site morbidity associated with iliac crest bone harvest in oral and maxillofacial, reconstructive surgery. J Clin Diagn Res. 2017;11(6):ZC28-ZC33. doi:10.7860/JCDR/2017/28688.10053
4.
LeeSWKimJYHongKYChoiTHKimBJKimS. The effect of biphasic calcium phosphate and demineralized bone matrix on tooth eruption in mongrel dogs. Arch Craniofac Surg. 2021;22(5):239-246. doi:10.7181/acfs.2021.00325
5.
LaiYChuanqingMZhiyuCChengyongWMengLJingLChenWH. Comparison of two preserved cartilage iliac crest cortical-cancellous bone blocks graft harvesting techniques in children: A prospective, double-blind, randomized clinical trial. J Craniomaxillofac Surg. 2023;51(11):716-722. doi:10.1016/j.jcms.2023.09.017
6.
AttarBMSoltaniPDavariDMehdizadehM. Cone-beam computed tomographic comparison of chin symphysis bone particles and allograft versus iliac crest bone graft alone for reconstruction of alveolar bone defects in cleft patients. J Kor Assoc Oral Max. 2022;48(2):85-93. doi:10.5125/jkaoms.2022.48.2.85
7.
ScheerlinckLMMuradinMSvan der BiltAMeijerGJKooleRVan CannEM. Donor site complications in bone grafting: Comparison of iliac crest, calvarial, and mandibular ramus bone. Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants. 2013;28(1):222-227. doi:10.11607/jomi.2603
8.
BlatterJMayLDe Buys RoessinghAMedingerLBroomeM. The mandibular ramus: An alternative donor site for secondary alveolar bone grafting in clefts of the alveolus. J Craniofac Surg. 2019;30(8):2590-2592. doi:10.1097/SCS.0000000000005684
9.
SaabyMNorholtSEKüselerAHartlevJ. Day care surgery for unilateral alveolar bone grafting of residual clefts with mandibular symphyseal bone-A prospective questionnaire study. Cleft Palate-Craniofacial Journal. 2022;59(2):216-221. doi:10.1177/1055665621999489
10.
RahpeymaAKhajehahmadiS. Mandibular ramus cortical tenting graft and particulate allograft in the management of unilateral alveolar cleft. Ann Maxillofac Surg. 2019;9(2):355-358. doi:10.4103/ams.ams_96_19
11.
WuCPanWFengCSuZDuanZZhengQHuaCLiC. Grafting materials for alveolar cleft reconstruction: A systematic review and best-evidence synthesis. Int J Oral Maxillofac Surg. 2018;47(3):345-356. doi:10.1016/j.ijom.2017.08.003
12.
MikoyaTInoueNMatsuzawaYTotsukaYKajiiTSHirosawaT. Monocortical mandibular bone grafting for reconstruction of alveolar cleft. Cleft Palate Craniofac J. 2010;47(5):454-468. doi:10.1597/09-172
13.
SalesPCetira FilhoELSilvaPGBCostaFWGLeaoJC. Effectiveness of autogenous chin bone graft in reconstructive surgery of cleft patients: A systematic review with meta-analysis and algorithm of treatment. J Oral Maxillofac Surg. 2023;81(8):988-1000. doi:10.1016/j.joms.2023.04.011
14.
MiyagawaKTanakaSHiroishiSMatsushitaYMurakamiSKogoM. Comparative evaluation of bone microstructure in alveolar cleft repair by cone beam CT: Influence of different autologous donor sites and additional application of beta-tricalcium phosphate. Clin Oral Investig. 2020;24(8):2789-2797. doi:10.1007/s00784-019-03142-1
15.
TrujilloRLKadiogluOCurrierGFSmithKSYetkinerE. Volumetric cleft changes in treatment with bone morphogenic protein/beta-tricalcium phosphate versus grafts from the iliac crest or symphysis. J Oral Maxillofac Surg. 2018;76(9):1991-1997. doi:10.1016/j.joms.2018.03.009
16.
ParkYWLeeJH. Use of mandibular chin bone for alveolar bone grafting in cleft patients. Maxillofac Plast Reconstr Surg. 2016;38(1):45. doi:10.1186/s40902-016-0091-z
17.
Sodnom-IshBEoMYParkMWLeeJYSeoMHYangHJKimSM. Anterior dental implant in grafted cleft alveolus: A clinical comparison between intramembranous and endochondral bone graft. J Craniofac Surg. 2023;34(3):916-921. doi:10.1097/Scs.0000000000009127
18.
El DeebMMesserLBLehnertMWHebdaTWWaiteDE. Canine eruption into grafted bone in maxillary alveolar cleft defects. Cleft Palate J. 1982;19(1):9-16.
19.
BorstlapWAHeidbuchelKLFreihoferHPKuijpers-JagtmanAM. Early secondary bone grafting of alveolar cleft defects. A comparison between chin and rib grafts. J Craniomaxillofac Surg. 1990;18(5):201-205. doi:10.1016/s1010-5182(05)80411-1
20.
LealCRde CarvalhoRMOzawaTOde AlmeidaAMda Silva DalbenGda Cunha BastosJCGaribDG. Outcomes of alveolar graft with rhbmp-2 in CLP: Influence of cleft type and width, canine eruption, and surgeon. Cleft Palate Craniofac J. 2019;56(3):383-389. doi:10.1177/1055665618780981
21.
Cho-LeeGYGarcia-DiezEMNunesRAMarti-PagesCSieira-GilRRivera-BaroA. Review of secondary alveolar cleft repair. Ann Maxillofac Surg. 2013;3(1):46-50. doi:10.4103/2231-0746.110083
22.
MillerLLKauffmannDSt JohnDWangDGrantJHWaitePD. Retrospective review of 99 patients with secondary alveolar cleft repair. J Oral Maxillofac Surg. 2010;68(6):1283-1289. doi:10.1016/j.joms.2009.09.106
23.
SharmaSRaoDJMajumderKJainH. Secondary alveolar bone grafting: Radiographic and clinical evaluation. Ann Maxillofac Surg. 2012;2(1):41-45. doi:10.4103/2231-0746.95316
24.
NagashimaHSakamotoYOgataHMiyamotoJYazawaMKishiK. Evaluation of bone volume after secondary bone grafting in unilateral alveolar cleft using computer-aided engineering. Cleft Palate Craniofac J. 2014;51(6):665-668. doi:10.1597/13-045
25.
DuYZhouWPanYTangYWanLJiangH. Block iliac bone grafting enhances osseous healing of alveolar reconstruction in older cleft patients: A radiological and histological evaluation. Med Oral Patol Oral Cir Bucal. 2018;23(2):e216-e224. doi:10.4317/medoral.21991
26.
FaulFErdfelderELangAGBuchnerA. G*Power 3: A flexible statistical power analysis program for the social, behavioral, and biomedical sciences. Behav Res Methods. 2007;39(2):175-191. doi:10.3758/bf03193146
27.
KooleRBoskerHvan der DussenFN. Late secondary autogenous bone grafting in cleft patients comparing mandibular (ectomesenchymal) and iliac crest (mesenchymal) grafts. J Craniomaxillofac Surg. 1989;17(Suppl 1):28-30. doi:10.1016/s1010-5182(89)80036-8
28.
EnemarkHJensenJBoschC. Mandibular bone graft material for reconstruction of alveolar cleft defects: Long-term results. Cleft Palate Craniofac J. 2001;38(2):155-163. doi:10.1597/1545-1569_2001_038_0155_mbgmfr_2.0.co_2
29.
FreihoferHPBorstlapWAKuijpers-JagtmanAMVoorsmitRACAvan DammePAHeidbüchelKLWMBorstlap-EngelsVMF. Timing and transplant materials for closure of alveolar clefts. A clinical comparison of 296 cases. J Craniomaxillofac Surg. 1993;21(4):143-148. doi:10.1016/s1010-5182(05)80102-7
30.
Trindade-SuedamIKda Silva FilhoOGCarvalhoRMde Souza FacoRACalvoAMOzawaTOTrindadeASTrindadeIEK. Timing of alveolar bone grafting determines different outcomes in patients with unilateral cleft palate. J Craniofac Surg. 2012;23(5):1283-1286. doi:10.1097/SCS.0b013e3182519ab5
31.
VandersluisYRFisherDMStevensKTompsonBDLouWSuriS. Comparison of dental outcomes in patients with nonsyndromic complete unilateral cleft lip and palate who receive secondary alveolar bone grafting before or after emergence of the permanent maxillary canine. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop. 2020;157(5):668-679. doi:10.1016/j.ajodo.2019.11.012
32.
KauraASSrinivasaDRKastenSJ. Optimal timing of alveolar cleft bone grafting for maxillary clefts in the cleft palate population. J Craniofac Surg. 2018;29(6):1551-1557. doi:10.1097/SCS.0000000000004680
33.
LorenzoniDCJansonGBastosJCCarvalhoRMBastosJCde Cássia Moura Carvalho LaurisRHenriquesJFCOzawaTO. Evaluation of secondary alveolar bone grafting outcomes performed after canine eruption in complete unilateral cleft lip and palate. Clin Oral Investig. 2017;21(1):267-273. doi:10.1007/s00784-016-1786-3
34.
AtaliOGocmenGAktopSAkEBasaSCetinelS. Bone healing after biodegradable mini-plate fixation. Acta Cir Bras. 2016;31(6):364-370. doi:10.1590/S0102-865020160060000001
35.
UekiKIshiharaYYoshizawaKMoroiAIkawaHIguchiRKosakaAHottaATsutsuiTSaidaY. Evaluation of bone formation after sagittal split ramus osteotomy using different fixation materials. J Craniomaxillofac Surg. 2015;43(5):710-716. doi:10.1016/j.jcms.2015.03.009
36.
UekiKOkabeKMiyazakiMMukozawaAMoroiAMarukawaKNakagawaKYamamotoE. Skeletal stability after mandibular setback surgery: Comparisons among unsintered hydroxyapatite/poly-L-lactic acid plate, poly-L-lactic acid plate, and titanium plate. J Oral Maxillofac Surg. 2011;69(5):1464-1468. doi:10.1016/j.joms.2010.06.187
37.
UekiKMarukawaKShimadaMNakagawaKAlamSYamamotoE. Maxillary stability following Le Fort I osteotomy in combination with sagittal split ramus osteotomy and intraoral vertical ramus osteotomy: A comparative study between titanium miniplate and poly-L-lactic acid plate. J Oral Maxillofac Surg. 2006;64(1):74-80. doi:10.1016/j.joms.2005.09.015
38.
EdwardsRCKielyKDEppleyBL. The fate of resorbable poly-L-lactic/polyglycolic acid (LactoSorb) bone fixation devices in orthognathic surgery. J Oral Maxillofac Surg. 2001;59(1):19-25. doi:10.1053/joms.2001.19267
39.
UekiKHashibaYMarukawaKOkabeKNakagawaKAlamSYamamotoE. Evaluation of bone formation after sagittal split ramus osteotomy with bent plate fixation using computed tomography. J Oral Maxillofac Surg. 2009;67(5):1062-1068. doi:10.1016/j.joms.2008.11.016
40.
Hochuli-VieiraECabrini GabrielliMAPereira-FilhoVAGabrielliMFPadilhaJG. Rigid internal fixation with titanium versus bioresorbable miniplates in the repair of mandibular fractures in rabbits. Int J Oral Maxillofac Surg. 2005;34(2):167-173. doi:10.1016/j.ijom.2004.03.016
41.
KojimaTFreitasPHUbaidusSSuzukiALiMYoshizawaMOdaKMaedaTKudoASaitoC, et al.Histochemical examinations on cortical bone regeneration induced by thermoplastic bioresorbable plates applied to bone defects of rat calvariae. Biomed Res. 2007;28(4):219-229. doi:10.2220/biomedres.28.219
42.
FerrettiC. A prospective trial of poly-L-lactic/polyglycolic acid co-polymer plates and screws for internal fixation of mandibular fractures. Int J Oral Maxillofac Surg. 2008;37(3):242-248. doi:10.1016/j.ijom.2007.11.015
43.
HawsLMaBGodfreyTWaitePDKinardBPowellK. Complication rates of the anterior iliac crest bone graft donor site for 426 pediatric patients undergoing alveolar bone grafting. J Oral Maxillofac Surg. 2025;83(9):1101-1105. doi:10.1016/j.joms.2025.05.006
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.
