Abstract
This study aims to evaluate current bone graft protocols in the comprehensive treatment of patients with cleft lip and palate, identifying trends, challenges, and improvement strategies. A mixed methodology is employed, including a retrospective cohort study of 75 patients treated between 2021 and 2023, an 18-month prospective observational study, and a survey of 46 experts in the field. Results reveal a preference for secondary alveolar bone grafting, with an optimal intervention age between 7-9 years, with iliac crest autograft being the most utilized. High success rates were observed in graft integration and aesthetic improvements, although challenges such as graft resorption and postoperative complications persisted. Experts emphasized the importance of a multidisciplinary approach and treatment personalization, identifying a growing trend towards the use of advanced technologies such as 3D surgical planning and cell therapies. It is concluded that current protocols are evolving towards more personalized and technologically advanced treatments, with success depending on a multidisciplinary approach, appropriate intervention timing, and long-term follow-up. The persistence of challenges underscores the need for continuous research, while the integration of new techniques and materials promises to improve functional and aesthetic outcomes, highlighting the dynamic nature of the field and the importance of continuous optimization of treatment protocols
Publisher
Salud, Ciencia y Tecnologia
Reference15 articles.
1. 1. Palmero Picazo J, Rodríguez Gallegos MF. Labio y paladar hendido. Conceptos actuales. Acta Médica Grup ángeles. 2019;17(4):372–9. https://www.scielo.org.mx/scielo.php?pid=S1870-72032019000400372
2. 2. Cazar Almache ME, Campos Ramírez LA, Pineda Álvarez DM, Guillén Guerrero PF. Panorama epidemiológico de la fisura labiopalatina en Quito, Guayaquil y Cuenca. Ecuador, 2010-2018. Acta Odontológica Colomb. 2020;10(1):37–46. https://revistas.unal.edu.co/index.php/actaodontocol/article/view/82122
3. 3. Thapa A, Antil A, Ray S, Roy ID, Walia BS. Modified indigenous nasal elevator for cleft lip and palate patient: A novel clinical innovation. Med J Armed Forces India [Internet]. 2024;80(4):488–91. Available from: https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0377123724001035
4. 4. Dak-Albab R, Soudan R, Shakhashero H, Zabad MK. Congenital malformations and their impact on Oral Health-Related Quality of Life among Syrian children with cleft lip and/or palate. Indian J Dent [Internet]. 2014;5(1):1–5. Available from: https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0975962X13000737
5. 5. Rubiera Carballosa J, Chávez Sosa L, Pérez Iglesias RE, García del Busto Chinea M, Calvo Pérez D. Prevalencia de fisuras labiales, palatinas y labio-alveolo-palatinas en nacidos vivos con respecto al país. Matanzas. 2014-2018. Rev Científica Estud Ciencias Médicas Matanzas. 2021;1(2):1–12. https://revmedest.sld.cu/index.php/medest/article/view/26