Primary Gingivoperiosteplasty and its effect on Craniofacial Growth (Systematic review with clinical cases) | ||||
| Al-Azhar International Medical Journal | ||||
| Volume 2024, Issue 7, July 2024 | ||||
| DOI: 10.58675/2682-339X.2533 | ||||
 View on SCiNiTO | ||||
| Authors | ||||
| Mohamed Salama; Mohamed Farid; Ahmed Elmofty | ||||
| Plastic Surgery and Burn, Faculty of Medicine for Boys, Al-Azhar University, Cairo, Egypt | ||||
| Abstract | ||||
| Background: Gingivoperiosteoplasty (GPP) is a surgical technique utilized with initial lip repair to aid orthodontic therapy and eliminate the need for subsequent bone grafting. It involves the primary repair of the alveolar bone. Aim and objectives: To assess the consequence of GPP for treating alveolar clefts on craniofacial growth in cases with unilateral cleft lip and palate. Patients and methods: This systematic review was conducted on eight articles with 185 individuals with unilateral cleft lip and/or palate who underwent primary gingivoperiosteoplasty. All studies reported the age of repair and evaluation, ranging from 2 to 9 years. Results: Passive molding plates were applied by Wood et al., the Latham device was used by Matic and Power, and nasoalveolar molding was used by Hsieh et al. and Wang et al. Sahel and Mullerova showed that maxilla relation to cranial base (SNA) was 75.7, mandibular relation to cranial base (SNB) was 73.5, maxillary mandibular relation (ANB) was 202, and maxillary length (A-PMP) was 44.9. Conclusion: The GPP procedure leads to poorer alveolar bone quality and a higher risk of Bergland type III. Early cleft repair may inhibit maxillary growth. Presurgical infant orthopedic (PSIO) treatment may affect alveolar bone and maxillary growth outcomes. Secondary alveolar bone grafting has better outcomes than primary GPP. However, nasoalveolar molding may generate similar success rates and alveolar height while being less invasive and having lower morbidity than primary GPP. | ||||
|
Statistics Article View: 14 |
||||
