Abstract
Anterior lip/palate cleft is a congenital deformity affecting the upper lip and palate, posing significant challenges in both aesthetic and functional aspects for children. Effective management of this condition is crucial for improving quality of life and ensuring normal development. This review aims to highlight the regenerative treatment options available for children with anterior lip/palate cleft, focusing on the use of bone grafts and other advanced dental procedures. A review of the current literature and clinical practices was conducted to identify and evaluate the most effective treatment options. Emphasis was placed on regenerative techniques, particularly the use of bone grafts. Advancements in regenerative dentistry offer promising outcomes for children with anterior lip/palate cleft. Bone grafts, combined with innovative techniques such as growth factors, stem cell therapy, and distraction osteogenesis, provide effective solutions for restoring function and aesthetics. A multidisciplinary approach is essential to ensure comprehensive care and optimal results for these patients.
1. Introduction
Anterior lip/palate cleft (ALPC) is a congenital anomaly characterized by the incomplete fusion of the upper lip, palate, and often the alveolar ridge during embryogenesis, typically between the 4th and 7th weeks of fetal development. This malformation results in an alveolar cleft, a bony defect in the maxillary arch that disrupts the continuity of the dental-bearing bone. The condition’s global prevalence varies widely, ranging from 1 in 500 to 2500 live births, influenced by geographic, ethnic, and socioeconomic factors [1]. For example, epidemiological data indicate a prevalence of 9.4 per 10,000 births in Colombia and 10.3 per 10,000 in Chile, while Native American populations exhibit rates as high as 20 to 35 per 10,000 births, highlighting significant ethnic disparities [1]. Beyond its physical manifestations, ALPC profoundly impacts multiple domains, including facial aesthetics, feeding efficiency, speech articulation, and dental alignment, necessitating a multidisciplinary approach to treatment [2]. Without timely intervention, these functional deficits can persist, complicating craniofacial development and psychosocial well-being.
The primary objective of this review is to assess regenerative treatment options for children with ALPC, with a particular emphasis on bone grafting strategies to address the alveolar cleft. These interventions aim to restore the structural integrity of the alveolar process, enabling proper eruption of permanent teeth, stabilizing the maxillary arch, and enhancing facial symmetry. Successful grafting also lays the foundation for advanced dental rehabilitation, such as osseointegrated dental implants, which are critical for long-term oral function and quality of life [3,4]. Historically, surgical correction of alveolar clefts (AC) has evolved from simple soft tissue closure to sophisticated regenerative techniques, reflecting advancements in biomaterials and molecular biology.
Autologous bone grafts, harvested from the patient’s own body, are considered the gold standard for AC repair due to their triad of osteogenic (bone-forming), osteoinductive (bone-stimulating), and osteoconductive (bone-supporting) properties [5,6]. The iliac crest is the most frequently utilized donor site, providing corticocancellous bone that integrates effectively with the recipient site, achieving success rates exceeding 80% in clinical studies [7,8]. For instance, Hudak et al. documented a 92.9% success rate with calvarial bone grafts over a 25-year follow-up, underscoring the reliability of autologous sources [9]. However, the procedure’s drawbacks—such as donor-site morbidity (e.g., chronic pain, infection, or pelvic instability)—have driven exploration into alternative materials [5,6,8,10,11,12,13]. These limitations include prolonged recovery times and, in rare cases, complications necessitating additional surgery.
To circumvent these challenges, alternative grafting options such as allografts, xenografts, and synthetic bone substitutes have gained attention. Allografts, sourced from human cadavers, eliminate donor-site morbidity and are widely available, yet they lack viable osteogenic cells and carry a minimal risk of disease transmission [5,14]. Xenografts, typically deproteinized bovine bone, serve as osteoconductive scaffolds but lack osteoinductive capacity and raise concerns about immunogenicity or zoonotic disease transmission [5,14,15,16,17]. Synthetic grafts, such as hydroxyapatite or tricalcium phosphate, offer biocompatibility and customizable properties, but their lack of osteogenic and osteoinductive potential limits their regenerative efficacy, as shown in Table 1 [5,14,16]. While these alternatives reduce surgical burden, autologous grafts maintain superiority due to their unmatched biological performance, though research continues to refine substitutes for broader clinical applications [5,18].
Table 1.
Structured comparison of bone graft materials.
Recent innovations in regenerative dentistry have expanded the toolkit for AC repair. The incorporation of growth factors, such as bone morphogenetic protein-2 (BMP-2) and platelet-rich plasma (PRP), enhances graft performance by accelerating osteogenesis and reducing integration time—the duration required for the graft to fuse with the host bone [19,20]. Li et al. demonstrated that PRP supplementation in autologous iliac grafts increased bone density by 6 months post-surgery, with fewer complications than grafts alone [19]. Similarly, BMP-2 has been shown to boost bone volume by up to 30% in preclinical models, offering a potent adjunct to traditional methods [21]. Beyond growth factors, stem cell therapy and tissue engineering—utilizing mesenchymal stem cells (MSCs) and biocompatible scaffolds—are emerging as transformative approaches [21,22,23]. These techniques aim to regenerate bone with minimal reliance on donor tissue, potentially revolutionizing outcomes in complex cases.
The timing of intervention is pivotal to treatment success. Secondary alveolar bone grafting (SABG), performed during the mixed dentition phase (ages 6–11), is widely accepted as the optimal period, coinciding with the eruption of the permanent canine [6,24,25]. This timing maximizes support for dental development while minimizing interference with maxillary growth, as evidenced by Chang et al. and Brudnicki et al., who linked SABG to improved craniofacial morphology and reduced revision rates [26,27]. However, individual variability, such as the patient’s skeletal maturity and cleft severity, requires personalized timing adjustments to optimize outcomes.
This review synthesizes current evidence on bone grafting modalities for anterior lip/palate cleft in children, spotlighting the integration of regenerative innovations like growth factors and stem cells. By weighing the strengths and limitations of autologous, allogeneic, xenogeneic, and synthetic materials, it aims to equip clinicians with a nuanced understanding of effective strategies for restoring function and aesthetics. Emphasizing a tailored, multidisciplinary approach, this article highlights the evolving landscape of cleft care and the promise of regenerative therapies in achieving superior long-term results.
2. Materials and Methods
This review was conducted through a search of scientific and dental articles published in databases such as PubMed, Medline, EBSCO, ELSEVIER, Cochrane, and Google Scholar. To achieve the research objective and have a clear guide, an electronic search was performed with specific filters to locate the maximum number of articles using the keywords described in Table 2.
Table 2.
Keywords used for research.
In addition to applying an advanced search in the databases used, the inclusion and exclusion criteria for selecting suitable articles for this study are described in Table 3.
Table 3.
Inclusion and exclusion criteria used for research.
Table 3 summarizes each included article by author, year, and journal of publication, the aim and the test type, the results and the conclusions.
Figure 1 describes the search strategy used in this study using a flow chart.
Figure 1.
Search strategy flowchart.
3. Results
During the literature review process, 53 articles were selected based on the objectives established at the beginning of the study and following the inclusion and exclusion criteria.
The process of identifying, selecting, and removing studies is summarized in an initial phase where 1597 studies were identified. Of this total, 82 articles were considered potentially eligible based on the title and general description.
In the second phase, 63 articles were selected based on the full-text analysis, and 10 of these articles were excluded due to the inclusion and exclusion criteria or because they were duplicates.
The relevant aspects of the remaining 53 articles, including authors, publication year, objectives, study type, description of results, and conclusions, are shown in Table 4.
Table 4.
Summary of each article included in the review, dividing by author, year and journal of publication, study type, aim, test type, results, and conclusions.
4. Discussion
The treatment of anterior lip/palate cleft in children poses a complex challenge, requiring a deep understanding of regenerative treatment options, particularly bone grafting, to reconstruct the alveolar ridge and support craniofacial and dental development.
The management of patients with cleft lip and palate requires a multidisciplinary approach from birth to adulthood, involving multiple surgical and non-surgical interventions. One of the key procedures is the reconstruction of the alveolar cleft using bone grafts, as its presence generates functional, aesthetic, and psychological problems, affecting speech, swallowing, dental occlusion, facial development, and patient self-esteem [2].
According to authors Dissaux C et al. [5], McCrary H et al. [25], Matthews Zúñiga F et al. [12], among others [7,35,40], the main goal of regenerative treatment is to restore the continuity of the alveolar ridge, provide bone support for dental eruption and/or implant placement, close oronasal communications, improve nasal projection, and optimize outcomes of future corrective surgeries.
4.1. Family History and Risk Factors
Understanding the etiology of anterior lip/palate cleft is essential for tailoring regenerative treatments and informing preventive strategies, with family history and environmental risk factors playing significant roles.
Lekaviciene et al. emphasize a strong genetic component, reporting a markedly higher prevalence of cleft lip and palate among families with a history of the condition, suggesting that inherited factors contribute substantially to its occurrence [54]. This familial clustering aligns with broader genetic insights; Babai et al. note that advancements in genetics have identified multiple genes and syndromes linked to orofacial clefts, enhancing prenatal diagnosis and treatment planning [29].
However, genetics alone does not fully account for cleft etiology; environmental influences during pregnancy amplify the risk. Xuan et al. found a statistically significant association between maternal smoking and cleft lip with or without palate, with an odds ratio (OR) of 1.368 (95% CI: 1.259–1.486), indicating a 36.8% increased likelihood, alongside a dose-response effect in half the studies reviewed [32]. Similarly, Molina-Solana et al. identified maternal alcohol consumption as a risk factor, with an OR of 1.28 (95% CI not specified), alongside other factors like obesity (OR 1.26), stress (OR 1.41), and low zinc levels (OR 1.82), while folic acid intake reduced risk (OR 0.77) [33].
These findings, supported by Hammond et al., underscore the interplay between genetic predisposition and modifiable environmental exposures during embryogenesis [31]. For clinicians, this dual etiology necessitates thorough family history assessments and prenatal counseling to identify at-risk patients, potentially guiding the timing and type of bone grafting interventions. While regenerative treatments like autologous grafts remain the focus, addressing these risk factors could mitigate cleft severity and improve long-term outcomes, though further research into gene/environment interactions is needed [29,54].
4.2. Bone Grafting Materials: A Comparative Overview
Bone grafting is the cornerstone of alveolar cleft repair. Surgical techniques for alveolar reconstruction have evolved significantly over time, but the use of autologous bone grafts, especially from the iliac crest, remains the “gold standard” for many professionals. The main advantage of these grafts is their osteogenic, osteoinductive, and osteoconductive capacity [5,16], but their use implies an additional surgery and may generate morbidity at the donor site [5,6,8,10,11,12,13].
To avoid the morbidity associated with autologous grafts, alternatives such as allografts, xenografts, and synthetic grafts have been investigated. Allografts, such as demineralized bone, have osteoconductive and osteoinductive properties but lack live cells and may transmit diseases [5,16].
Xenografts, such as deproteinized bovine bone, are osteoconductive but not osteoinductive [5,15], and synthetic grafts, such as hydroxyapatite and tricalcium phosphate, provide an osteoconductive scaffold but lack osteogenic and osteoinductive properties [14,18,29,41].
Recently, the use of tissue engineering techniques and cell therapies to improve bone regeneration in alveolar cleft defects has been explored [18,21,22,23,42]. The combination of stem cells, growth factors, and biomaterials has shown promising results in preclinical and clinical studies [21,22,23,43,44,45].
The use of cells derived from bone marrow, adipose tissue, umbilical cord, and periosteum to promote bone formation has been reported [22,43,44,45]. Additionally, the use of platelet concentrates, such as platelet-rich plasma and platelet-rich fibrin, has been shown to improve the quality and quantity of grafted bone [19,20].
The choice of material depends on factors such as availability, donor site morbidity, surgeon preferences, and the optimal timing for performing the alveolar bone graft. Some studies suggest that grafting prior to orthodontic treatment may improve craniofacial morphological outcomes [26,27,46].
Nevertheless, it is classically proposed to perform the graft between 7 and 11 years of age, during the eruption of the permanent canine to optimize graft stability and reduce the need for additional procedures [6,24,47]. However, other authors suggest an earlier approach, performing the graft between 5 and 7 years or even in pre-surgical stages through primary and secondary gingivoperiosteoplasty [14,26,36].
4.3. Long-Term Stability of Grafts
Long-term stability is vital for maintaining functional and aesthetic results in alveolar cleft repair, yet data beyond five years are scarce for many materials.
Hudak et al. reported a 92.9% success rate with calvarial grafts over 25 years, with minimal resorption [9]. Wang et al. found implant survival rates of 80.7% to 96.3% in grafted sites after 1 to 5 years, suggesting good initial stability [3], and Kang noted that iliac crest grafts maintain volume, though resorption can range from 10% to 50% without proper stabilization [6].
Non-autologous materials lack comparable long-term evidence. Aly et al. reported promising bone formation with bovine xenografts at 6 months [15], and Al-Rawee et al. found effective reconstruction with synthetic Osteon III at 6 months [14], but neither study extended beyond one year. This highlights a critical research gap, especially for pediatric patients whose craniofacial growth continues, necessitating durable solutions.
4.4. Role of Growth Factors and Stem Cells
Emerging regenerative therapies, such as growth factors and stem cells, enhance bone graft outcomes by accelerating osteogenesis, improving integration, and potentially reducing the need for large autologous harvests.
BMP-2: Francisco et al. found no significant difference in bone volume between BMP-2 and iliac crest grafts after 6–12 months (p = 0.704), though BMP-2 shortened hospital stays [42]. Scalzone et al. noted increased bone formation at 6 months with BMP-2 (MD −14.410, p = 0.000), though benefits faded by 1 year [16].
PRP/PRF: Li et al. showed that PRP with autografts increased bone density at 6 months and reduced complications [19]. Shawky et al. (2016) found PRF improved bone formation (82.6% vs. 68.38%, p < 0.05), though density differences were not significant [20].
Khojasteh et al. reported that buccal fat pad-derived stem cells with iliac crest grafts achieved 82.5% bone formation vs. 70% in controls [45], and Mazzetti et al. observed that umbilical cord stem cells reduced inflammation and fibrosis, aiding recovery [44].
These biologics show promise, particularly in early healing, but their long-term benefits and standardization require further exploration via RCTs.
4.5. Impact of Timing and Age on Graft Outcomes
Patient age is also an important factor in planning, as it influences the selection of surgical technique, graft type, and bone regeneration potential. Timing significantly affects graft success, with secondary alveolar bone grafting (SABG) during mixed dentition (ages 6–11) considered optimal due to alignment with canine eruption and minimal impact on maxillary growth [6,24,25].
Primary ABG (0–6 years): Wang et al. reported a 72% success rate with primary gingivoperiosteoplasty, but larger residual defects suggest higher resorption [36].
As explained by Chang C et al. [26], in patients under 6 years old, the use of early secondary bone grafts with gingivoperiosteoplasty and pre-surgical orthopedics has gained popularity. This allows the utilization of the high regenerative potential at early ages and early guidance of alveolar ridge development. Nonetheless, spontaneous closure of small alveolar defects after hard palate repair has also been described in some studies, such as the study by Scheuermann M et al. [51].
In pediatric patients (6–11 years) or secondary ABG: Kang found 68–71% of grafts achieved normal bone height at 1 year [6], but Kaura et al. noted better outcomes in older children within this range of 7–12 years [24].
On the other hand, in adolescent and/or adult patients, for late Secondary ABG (>11 years), Green et al. observed that grafting at 10.1 years required more revisions than at 12.3 years (p < 0.001), indicating greater stability with age [47]. That means that late alveolar reconstruction may be necessary when not performed in childhood or if residual defects persist. In these cases, the goals are to improve aesthetics and enable prosthetic rehabilitation, generally with dental implants [3,4,52].
4.6. Comparison of Surgical Techniques: Iliac Crest vs. Calvarial Grafting
Choosing between iliac crest and calvarial grafting involves trade-offs. Iliac crest is described as having a success rate of around 96.7% with favorable outcomes [7]. It also shows 5–10% complications because of donor-site morbidity (pain, instability) [10,11]. In the end, the patient experience is notable for pain and recovery time [8]. On the other hand, calvarial grafts have a success rate of 92.9% over 25 years. Complications are around 1% morbidity with limited volume, and the patient experience involves less pain and better cosmesis [9].
Intraoral autologous grafts (ramus/chin) are preferred for their low morbidity, although extraoral grafts (iliac crest) remain a valid and well-studied option. The use of guided bone regeneration techniques with membranes and particulate materials has shown good results in localized defects [48,50].
4.7. Surgical Considerations
Other important aspects to consider in alveolar reconstruction are the type of incision, the use of barrier membranes, and graft stability. It has been reported that an incision limited to the keratinized gingiva improves the qualitative outcomes of the bone graft [48], and the use of barrier membranes such as absorbable collagen can improve graft stability and reduce future bone resorption [29,49,50], thus avoiding additional surgeries before implant placement. Therefore, proper stabilization of the graft with osteosynthesis plates and screws is essential to prevent displacement and improve outcomes [5,6,49].
4.8. Common Complications of Bone Grafting
It is important to mention that alveolar reconstruction with bone grafts is generally a safe procedure, with reported complication rates between 5% and 10% [25,40]. However, it is crucial to consider the associated risks and morbidities. Harvesting autologous grafts can generate various complications at the donor site, such as pain, paresthesia, hematoma, infection, scarring, and gait disturbances when obtained from the iliac crest, facial asymmetry in the case of the chin, or trismus and nerve injury when extracted from the mandibular ramus. These complications can be avoided using allogenic, xenogenic, or synthetic grafts [5,6,8,10,11,12,13].
Another possible complication is infection, which can occur at both the recipient and donor sites. Risk factors include poor oral hygiene, persistence of oronasal communication, and use of non-biocompatible materials. Treatment to eliminate infections involves antibiotics, drainage, and, in some cases, removal of the graft [32,40].
The most frequent complication is bone resorption following surgery, reported as partial or total in 10% to 50% of cases, being higher when extraoral autologous grafts are used [10,12,16]. Factors such as advanced age, smoking, poor graft stabilization, and lack of medullary bone graft are associated with this complication. The use of alveolar preservation and bone regeneration techniques can help reduce resorption [37,49].
Dehiscence and graft exposure is another complication that can occur due to tension closure of soft tissues, infection, or necrosis. Management requires the use of local flaps, soft tissue grafts, or covering materials such as membranes to prevent graft loss [49,50].
Finally, despite adequate alveolar reconstruction, teeth adjacent to the cleft, such as the lateral incisor and canine, may become impacted or exhibit ectopic eruption. In these cases, orthodontic traction or eventual tooth extraction is required [30,36].
To avoid various complications or improve future outcomes, regenerative therapies, including the use of olecranon grafts [11], mineralized plasma matrices [53], and resorbable collagen membranes [37,49] have shown promising results, but more clinical trials are needed to establish their long-term efficacy and safety.
4.9. Future Directions
The rehabilitation of patients with alveolar cleft through dental implants after bone grafting has been extensively studied in the literature. Wermker et al. [4] and Vuletić et al. [35] conducted studies that evaluated the survival and success of dental implants in patients with grafted alveolar cleft, obtaining similar results. Vuletić et al. observed a survival rate of 93.3% and a success rate of 86.7% after a mean follow-up of 5 years, while Wermker et al. reported a weighted average survival rate of 91.2% and a success rate of 82%. These findings are supported by the systematic review of Wang et al. [3], which included 14 studies and found a weighted average survival rate of 95.5% and a weighted average success rate of 91.5% for implants placed in patients with alveolar cleft.
Van Nhan et al. [34] and Khojasteh et al. [45] presented new alveolar bone grafting techniques to improve implant placement outcomes in cleft patients. Van Nhan et al. used a combination of iliac crest block bone graft and maxillary tuberosity particulate bone graft, achieving a 100% implant survival rate after a mean follow-up of 30 months. On the other hand, Khojasteh et al. employed a combined technique of autogenous bone graft, flap-derived cells of Bichat, and a cortical bone plate from the mandibular ramus, also achieving a 100% implant survival rate and an average vertical bone gain of 9.4 mm after a 12-month follow-up.
Pucciarelli et al. [52] presented a clinical report and guidelines for implant placement in patients with cleft lip and palate, highlighting the importance of a thorough pre-operative evaluation, adequate healing time after bone grafting, and the use of guided bone regeneration techniques when necessary. These recommendations are consistent with the approaches used in the studies by Van Nhan et al. and Khojasteh et al., which achieved excellent results in implant therapy in patients with alveolar cleft.
4.10. Future Perspectives on Bone Grafting and 3D Printing
The future of bone grafting for treating ALPC holds immense promise through the synergy of regenerative medicine and 3D printing technologies. Patient-specific 3D-printed scaffolds, crafted from biocompatible materials such as hydroxyapatite (a mineral naturally found in bone or polycaprolactone, a biodegradable polymer, enable unprecedented precision in graft design). These materials can be tailored to replicate the complex geometry of the alveolar defect, ensuring a perfect fit that enhances both functionality and aesthetics [41]. This level of customization significantly reduces donor-site morbidity, a longstanding drawback of traditional autologous grafts harvested from sites like the iliac crest or calvarial bone, which often result in pain, infection risk, or limited tissue availability [5,6,9,11].
Furthermore, these scaffolds can be enhanced with bioactive molecules like bone morphogenetic proteins (BMPs), which trigger osteoblast differentiation to form new bone, and vascular endothelial growth factors (VEGFs), which stimulate blood vessel formation to support tissue regeneration [21,22,23]. The incorporation of stem cells, such as mesenchymal stem cells (MSCs) derived from adipose tissue or bone marrow, adds another layer of potential by providing a renewable source of bone-forming cells. Preclinical studies, such as the work by Martín del Campo et al., have demonstrated this potential, achieving significant bone regeneration in animal models using 3D-printed scaffolds seeded with stem cells [23].
As researchers committed to improving ALPC treatment, we view the convergence of 3D printing and regenerative medicine as an innovative shift that could redefine patient care. The ability to design customized, bioactive grafts that restore both form and function while minimizing the surgical burden (particularly for young patients facing multiple interventions) fills us with excitement and hope. Imagine a future where a child with ALPC receives a single, tailored graft that grows with them, reducing the need for repeated surgeries and improving their quality of life. However, we are equally aware of the barriers that lie ahead. Ensuring the long-term safety and efficacy of these technologies, especially in pediatric patients whose bones are still developing, requires extensive clinical validation through large-scale, longitudinal trials [18,41]. Beyond the science, practical challenges stand out as major concerns, including the high cost of 3D printing equipment and materials, along with regulatory complexities surrounding new biomaterials, which could limit accessibility, particularly in under-resourced healthcare systems.
Despite these obstacles, our optimism endures. We believe that with sustained interdisciplinary collaboration (bringing together engineers, clinicians, and representatives) and ongoing technological refinement, 3D-printed regenerative grafts will soon become a cornerstone of ALPC treatment. This future promises a paradigm where cleft repair is not only less invasive and more predictable but also uniquely adapted to each child’s needs, paving the way for more equitable and effective care worldwide.
5. Conclusions
In conclusion, alveolar reconstruction in patients with alveolar clefts remains a complex challenge that requires a multidisciplinary approach. Although autologous bone grafting remains the standard, regenerative therapies and biomaterials are emerging as promising alternatives. The choice of the optimal timing for grafting and the surgical technique should be tailored to each patient, but it is described that during the eruption of the canine tooth is the timing that gains the most advantages. Advances in 3D technology and implant rehabilitation have improved long-term outcomes, and the studies analyzed show that dental implant placement in grafted alveolar cleft patients is a predictable and successful treatment option, with implant survival and success rates exceeding 90% in most cases. The use of advanced bone grafting techniques, such as the combination of block and particulate grafts or cellular therapy, can further improve outcomes. Through pre-operative planning, adequate healing time, and the use of guided bone regeneration techniques when necessary are key factors for the success of implant therapy in these patients. Nevertheless, more research is needed to refine surgical techniques, explore new regenerative therapies, and establish evidence-based protocols to optimize functional and aesthetic outcomes in patients with alveolar clefts.
Author Contributions
Conceptualization, M.C.-N. and J.d.Q.-B.; methodology, J.F.-F.; software, A.M.-E.; validation, F.G. and C.G. data curation, C.G. supervision, F.G. and J.F.-F.; writing—original draft preparation, A.M.-E. and F.R.-V.; writing—review and editing, J.F.-F.; supervision L.F. All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.
Funding
This research received no external funding.
Institutional Review Board Statement
Not applicable.
Informed Consent Statement
Not applicable.
Data Availability Statement
The raw data supporting the conclusions of this article will be made available by the authors on request due to privacy reasons, as the dataset includes sensitive information derived from clinical studies involving pediatric patients.
Conflicts of Interest
The authors declare no conflicts of interest.
References
- Salari, N.; Darvishi, N.; Heydari, M.; Bokaee, S.; Darvishi, F.; Mohammadi, M. Global prevalence of cleft palate, cleft lip and cleft palate and lip: A comprehensive systematic review and meta-analysis. J. Stomatol. Oral Maxillofac. Surg. 2022, 123, 110–120. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Yates, D.; Allareddy, V.; Caplin, J.; Yadav, S.; Markiewicz, M.R. An Overview of Timeline of Interventions in the Continuum of Cleft Lip and Palate Care. Oral Maxillofac. Surg. Clin. N. Am. 2020, 32, 177–186. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Wang, F.; Wu, Y.; Zou, D.; Wang, G.; Kaigler, D. Clinical outcomes of dental implant therapy in alveolar cleft patients: A systematic review. Int. J. Oral Maxillofac. Implant. 2014, 29, 1098–1105. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Wermker, K.; Jung, S.; Joos, U.; Kleinheinz, J. Dental implants in cleft lip, alveolus, and palate patients: A systematic review. Int. J. Oral Maxillofac. Implant. 2014, 29, 384–390. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Dissaux, C.; Ruffenach, L.; Bruant-Rodier, C.; George, D.; Bodin, F.; Rémond, Y. Cleft Alveolar Bone Graft Materials: Literature Review. Cleft Palate Craniofacial J. 2022, 59, 336–346. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Kang, N.H. Current Methods for the Treatment of Alveolar Cleft. Arch. Plast. Surg. 2017, 44, 188–193. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Cho-Lee, G.; García-Díez, E.; Nunes, R.; Martí-Pagès, C.; Sieira-Gil, R.; Rivera-Baró, A. Review of secondary alveolar cleft repair. Ann. Maxillofac. Surg. 2013, 3, 46–50. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Dasari, M.R.; Babu, V.R.; Apoorva, C.; Allareddy, S.; Devireddy, S.K.; Kanubaddy, S.R. Correction of Secondary Alveolar Clefts with Iliac Bone Grafts. Contemp. Clin. Dent. 2018, 9 (Suppl. S1), S100–S106. [Google Scholar] [PubMed]
- Hudak, K.A.; Hettinger, P.; Denny, A.D. Cranial bone grafting for alveolar clefts: A 25-year review of outcomes. Plast. Reconstr. Surg. 2014, 133, 662e–668e. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Sleman, N. Alveolar cleft reconstruction using iliac bone graft: A clinical case report. Ann. Med. Surg. 2023, 85, 5776–5781. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Quintero González, E.; Pérez Quintero, J.C.; Malagón Hidalgo, H.O. Modificación técnica y experiencia con injerto óseo esponjoso de olécranon para el tratamiento de la hendidura alveolar. Cirugía Plástica Ibero-Latinoam 2019, 45, 313–321. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Matthews Zúñiga, F.; Gatica, J.; Cartes-Velásquez, R. Técnicas de injerto óseo alveolar en fisura labio alveolo palatina. Revis. Lit. Rev. Med. Electron. 2015, 37, 488–501. [Google Scholar]
- Mossaad, A.; Badry, T.E.; Abdelrahaman, M.; Abdelazim, A.; Ghanem, W.; Hassan, S.; Adly, N.; Shawkat, W. Alveolar Cleft Reconstruction Using Different Grafting Techniques. Open Access Maced. J. Med. Sci. 2019, 7, 1369–1373. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Al-Rawee, R.Y.; Tawfeeq, B.A.-G.; Hamodat, A.M.; Tawfek, Z.S. Consequence of Synthetic Bone Substitute Used for Alveolar Cleft Graft Reconstruction (Preliminary Clinical Study). Arch. Plast. Surg. 2023, 50, 478–487. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Aly, L.A.A.; Hammouda, N. Secondary closure of alveolar cleft with resorbable collagen membrane and a combination of intraoral autogenous bone graft and deproteinized an organic bovine bone. Ann. Maxillofac. Surg. 2016, 6, 165–171. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Scalzone, A.; Flores-Mir, C.; Carozza, D.; d’Apuzzo, F.; Grassia, V.; Perillo, L. Secondary alveolar bone grafting using autologous versus alloplastic material in the treatment of cleft lip and palate patients: Systematic review and meta-analysis. Prog. Orthod. 2019, 20, 6. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Brauner, E.; De Angelis, F.; Jamshir, S.; Mezi, S.; Tiroli, R.C.; Pompa, G.; Quarato, A.; Di Carlo, S. Aesthetic satisfaction in lip and palate clefts: A comparative study between secondary and tertiary bone grafting. Clin. Ter. 2018, 169, e62–e66. [Google Scholar]
- Liang, F.; Leland, H.; Jedrzejewski, B.; Auslander, A.; Maniskas, S.; Swanson, J.; Urata, M.; Hammoudeh, J.; Magee, W. Alternatives to Autologous Bone Graft in Alveolar Cleft Reconstruction: The State of Alveolar Tissue Engineering. J. Craniofacial Surg. 2018, 29, 584–593. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Li, T.; Wang, Y.Y.; Liu, C. The effectiveness of using platelet-rich concentrate with iliac bone graft in the repair of alveolar cleft: A meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials. Int. J. Oral Maxillofac. Surg. 2023, 52, 1049–1056. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Shawky, H.; Seifeldin, S.A. Does Platelet-Rich Fibrin Enhance Bone Quality and Quantity of Alveolar Cleft Reconstruction? Cleft Palate Craniofacial J. 2016, 53, 597–606. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Oliver, J.D.; Jia, S.; Halpern, L.R.; Graham, E.M.; Turner, E.C.; Colombo, J.S.; Grainger, D.W.; D’Souza, R.N. Innovative Molecular and Cellular Therapeutics in Cleft Palate Tissue Engineering. Tissue Eng. Part B Rev. 2021, 27, 215–237. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Amiri, M.A.; Lavaee, F.; Danesteh, H. Use of stem cells in bone regeneration in cleft palate patients: Review and recommendations. J. Korean Assoc. Oral Maxillofac. Surg. 2022, 48, 71–78. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Martín-del-Campo, M.; Rosales-Ibañez, R.; Rojo, L. Biomaterials for Cleft Lip and Palate Regeneration. Int. J. Mol. Sci. 2019, 20, 2176. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Kaura, A.S.; Srinivasa, D.R.; Kasten, S.J. Optimal Timing of Alveolar Cleft Bone Grafting for Maxillary Clefts in the Cleft Palate Population. J. Craniofacial Surg. 2018, 29, 1551–1557. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- McCrary, H.; Skirko, J.R. Bone Grafting of Alveolar Clefts. Oral Maxillofac. Surg. Clin. N. Am. 2021, 33, 231–238. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Chang, C.-S.; Wallace, C.G.; Hsiao, Y.-C.; Chiu, Y.-T.; Pai, B.C.-J.; Chen, I.-J.; Liao, Y.-F.; Liou, E.J.-W.; Chen, P.K.-T.; Chen, J.-P.; et al. Difference in the Surgical Outcome of Unilateral Cleft Lip and Palate Patients with and without Pre-Alveolar Bone Graft Orthodontic Treatment. Sci. Rep. 2016, 6, 23597. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Brudnicki, A.; Sawicka, E.; Brudnicka, R.; Piotr Stanisław, F. Effects of Different Timing of Alveolar Bone Graft on Craniofacial Morphology in Unilateral Cleft Lip and Palate. Cleft Palate Craniofacial J. 2020, 57, 105–113. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Marginean, C.; Sasarean, V.; Marginean, C.O.; Melit, L.E.; Marginean, M.O. Prenatal diagnosis of cleft lip and cleft lip palate—A case series. Med. Ultrason. 2018, 20, 531–535. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Babai, A.; Irving, M. Orofacial Clefts: Genetics of Cleft Lip and Palate. Genes 2023, 14, 1603. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Jabbari, F.; Reiser, E.; Thor, A.; Hakelius, M.; Nowinski, D. Correlations between initial cleft size and dental anomalies in unilateral cleft lip and palate patients after alveolar bone grafting. Upsala J. Med. Sci. 2016, 121, 33–37. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Hammond, N.L.; Dixon, M.J. Revisiting the embryogenesis of lip and palate development. Oral Dis. 2022, 28, 1306–1326. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Xuan, Z.; Zhongpeng, Y.; Yanjun, G.; Jiaqi, D.; Yuchi, Z.; Bing, S.; Chenghao, L. Maternal active smoking and risk of oral clefts: A meta-analysis. Oral Surg. Oral Med. Oral Pathol. Oral Radiol. 2016, 122, 680–690. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Molina-Solana, R.; Yáñez-Vico, R.M.; Iglesias-Linares, A.; Mendoza-Mendoza, A.; Solano-Reina, E. Current concepts on the effect of environmental factors on cleft lip and palate. Int. J. Oral Maxillofac. Surg. 2013, 42, 177–184. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Van Nhan, V.; Van Son, L.; Tuan, T.A.; Son, N.T.; Hai, T.D.; Lanh, L.D.; Ha, N.M.; Phong, L.D. A New Technique in Alveolar Cleft Bone Grafting for Dental Implant Placement in Patients with Cleft Lip and Palate. Cleft Palate Craniofacial J. 2018, 55, 180–188. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Vuletić, M.; Knežević, P.; Jokić, D.; Rebić, J.; ZŽabarović, D.; Macan, D. Alveolar Bone Grafting in Cleft Patients from Bone Defect to Dental Implants. Acta Stomatol. Croat. 2014, 48, 250–257. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Wang, Y.; Liao, Y.; Chen, P.K. Comparative Outcomes of Primary Gingivoperiosteoplasty and Secondary Alveolar Bone Grafting in Patients with Unilateral Cleft Lip and Palate. Plast. Reconstr. Surg. 2016, 137, 218–227. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Singkhorn, T.; Pripatnanont, P.; Nuntanaranont, T.; Supakanjanakanti, D.; Ritthagol, W. Influence of a resorbable collagen membrane for alveolar bone graft on clinical outcomes and ridge volume stability in cleft alveolus. Int. J. Oral Maxillofac. Surg. 2023, 52, 860–868. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Janjua, O.S.; Qureshi, S.M.; Shaikh, M.S.; Alnazzawi, A.; Rodriguez-Lozano, F.J.; Pecci-Lloret, M.P.; Zafar, M.S. Autogenous Tooth Bone Grafts for Repair and Regeneration of Maxillofacial Defects: A Narrative Review. Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health 2022, 19, 3690. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Khan, M.; Ullah, H.; Naz, S.; Iqbal, T.; Ullah, T.; Tahir, M.; Ullah, O. A revised classification of the cleft lip and palate. Can. J. Plast. Surg. 2013, 21, 48–50. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Seifeldin, S.A. Is alveolar cleft reconstruction still controversial? (Review of literature). Saudi Dent. J. 2016, 28, 3–11. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Jariwala, S.H.; Lewis, G.S.; Bushman, Z.J.; Adair, J.H.; Donahue, H.J. 3D Printing of Personalized Artificial Bone Scaffolds. 3D Print. Addit. Manuf. 2015, 2, 56–64. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Francisco, I.; Paula, A.B.; Oliveiros, B.; Fernandes, M.H.; Carrilho, E.; Marto, C.M.; Vale, F. Regenerative Strategies in Cleft Palate: An Umbrella Review. Bioengineering 2021, 8, 76. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Garcia, B.A.; Prada, M.R.; Ávila-Portillo, L.M.; Rojas, H.N.; Gómez-Ortega, V.; Menze, E. New Technique for Closure of Alveolar Cleft with Umbilical Cord Stem Cells. J. Craniofacial Surg. 2019, 30, 663–666. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Mazzetti, M.P.V.; Alonso, N.; Brock, R.S.; Ayoub, A.; Massumoto, S.M.; Eça, L.P. Importance of Stem Cell Transplantation in Cleft Lip and Palate Surgical Treatment Protocol. J. Craniofacial Surg. 2018, 29, 1445–1451. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Khojasteh, A.; Kheiri, L.; Behnia, H.; Tehranchi, A.; Nazeman, P.; Nadjmi, N.; Soleimani, M. Lateral Ramus Cortical Bone Plate in Alveolar Cleft Osteoplasty with Concomitant Use of Buccal Fat Pad Derived Cells and Autogenous Bone: Phase I Clinical Trial. Biomed. Res. Int. 2017, 2017, 6560234. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Silva Gomes Ferreira, P.H.; De Oliveira, D.; Duailibe De Deus, C.B.; Okamoto, R. Evaluation of the Different Biomaterials Used in Alveolar Cleft Defects in Children. Ann. Maxillofac. Surg. 2018, 8, 315–319. [Google Scholar] [PubMed]
- Green, M.A.; Padwa, B.L. Does Timing of Secondary Alveolar Bone Grafting Affect the Need for Additional Bone Augmentation Prior to Implant Placement at Cleft Sites? J. Oral Maxillofac. Surg. 2021, 79, 1927–1931. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- López-Cedrún, J.L.; Gonzalez-Landa, G.; Figueroa, A. Isolated keratinized gingiva incision in alveolar cleft bone grafts improves qualitative outcomes: A single surgeon’s 23-year experience. J. Craniomaxillofac. Surg. 2014, 42, 1692–1697. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Rakhmatia, Y.D.; Ayukawa, Y.; Furuhashi, A.; Koyano, K. Current barrier membranes: Titanium mesh and other membranes for guided bone regeneration in dental applications. J. Prosthodont. Res. 2013, 57, 3–14. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Urban, I.A.; Monje, A. Guided Bone Regeneration in Alveolar Bone Reconstruction. Oral Maxillofac. Surg. Clin. N. Am. 2019, 31, 331–338. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Scheuermann, M.; Vanreusel, I.; Van de Casteele, E.; Nadjmi, N. Spontaneous Bone Regeneration After Closure of the Hard Palate Cleft: A Literature Review. J. Oral Maxillofac. Surg. 2019, 77, e1–e1074. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Pucciarelli, M.G.R.; Lopes, A.C.O.; Lopes, J.F.S.; Soares, S. Implant placement for patients with cleft lip and palate: A clinical report and guidelines for treatment. J. Prosthet. Dent. 2019, 121, 9–12. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Omara, M.; Raafat, L.; Elfaramawi, T. Secondary alveolar cleft grafting using autogenous mineralized plasmatic matrix (MPM) versus cancellous bone particles derived from anterior iliac crest. Clin. Oral Investig. 2023, 27, 4259–4270. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Jamilian, A.; Sarkarat, F.; Jafari, M.; Neshandar, M.; Amini, E.; Khosravi, S.; Ghassemi, A. Family history and risk factors for cleft lip and palate patients and their associated anomalies. Stomatologija 2017, 19, 78–83. [Google Scholar]
Disclaimer/Publisher’s Note: The statements, opinions and data contained in all publications are solely those of the individual author(s) and contributor(s) and not of MDPI and/or the editor(s). MDPI and/or the editor(s) disclaim responsibility for any injury to people or property resulting from any ideas, methods, instructions or products referred to in the content. |
© 2025 by the authors. Licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland. This article is an open access article distributed under the terms and conditions of the Creative Commons Attribution (CC BY) license (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/).