"Distraction" of grafted alveolar bone in cleft case using endosseous implant

Esthetic and functional rehabilitation in patients with cleft lip and palate

Oral rehabilitation of missing teeth in cleft patients has acceptable success rates. A two-stage approach is indicated; however, timing of implant placement in the grafted maxilla varies within existing protocols. This case highlights successful implant osseointegration and esthetic oral rehabilitation following placement of two implants at 5 months after maxillary grafting (alveolar bone grafting) with a corticocancellous block obtained from the iliac crest. A 31-year-old male patient had already undergone repair of his bilateral cleft lip and soft palate according to established guidelines for cleft patients. Initial closure of his alveolar clefts and further correction of the maxillary hypoplasia with a bi-maxillary osteotomy were completed in 2002. However, bone resorption due to infection in 2003 necessitated removal of all maxillary incisors. The patient was not satisfied with the removable partial denture provided. In 2007, he did undergo anterior maxillary augmentation under general anesthesia, and 5 months later two implants were placed. A 3-unit bridge did replace functional and esthetic demands. Postoperative recovery was uneventful, and overall bone loss, and oral health remain within standards 28 months following implant placement. Optimal outcome is achievable when replacing missing teeth in cleft patients when timing does not exceed approximately a 6-month interval from bone grafting to implant placement. This article demonstrates that overall esthetic and functional rehabilitation is feasible in cleft lip and palate patients. In this patient, overall oral treatment was achieved with an implant prosthesis.

Satisfaction audit of patients undergoing mandibular distraction osteogenesis with extra-oral distraction appliances

INTRODUCTION

The aim of this research was to evaluate the level of satisfaction of patients who were undergoing distraction osteogenesis of mandible with extraoral distraction appliance.

MATERIAL AND METHODS

The prospective study was performed on 13 patients with facio-mandibular deformity reporting to the Oral Health Sciences Center, PGIMER, Chandigarh, India, who required surgical and orthodontic intervention for correction. A standardized multiple choice questionnaire was provided to all patients at 3 stages of treatment i.e. during predistraction, distraction and post distraction period.

RESULTS

Predistraction evaluation showed that the main reason for patients to seek treatment was lack of facial esthetics and all of them were sure that there would be a change in their lives after they underwent this treatment procedure. During distraction phase the most common complaint was pain. None of the patients felt that they were suffering during active distraction phase and all felt that they made the right decision. In post distraction phase, all patients were satisfied with the treatment and felt that the treatment was worth it. Twelve out of 13 patients would recommend treatment to others without any hesitation.

CONCLUSION

Our study concludes that distraction osteogenesis of the mandible with extra-oral appliances is acceptable to patients, and improved facial appearance is a positive influence. The appliance and results of the procedure are socially accepted and appreciated.