Inês Francisco1, Anabela Baptista Paula1,2,3,4,5, Bárbara Oliveiros3,6, Maria Helena Fernandes7, Eunice Carrilho2,3,4,5, Carlos Miguel Marto2,3,4,5,8, Francisco Vale1. 1. Institute of Orthodontics, Faculty of Medicine, University of Coimbra, 3004-531 Coimbra, Portugal. 2. Institute of Integrated Clinical Practice, Faculty of Medicine, University of Coimbra, 3004-531 Coimbra, Portugal. 3. Coimbra Institute for Clinical and Biomedical Research (iCBR), Area of Environment Genetics and Oncobiology (CIMAGO), Faculty of Medicine, University of Coimbra, 3004-531 Coimbra, Portugal. 4. Centre for Innovative Biomedicine and Biotechnology (CIBB), University of Coimbra, 3004-531Coimbra, Portugal. 5. Clinical Academic Center of Coimbra (CACC), 3004-531 Coimbra, Portugal. 6. Laboratory of Biostatistics and Medical Informatics (LBIM), Faculty of Medicine, University of Coimbra, 3004-531 Coimbra, Portugal. 7. LAQV/REQUIMTE, Faculty of Dental Medicine, University of Porto, 4200-393 Porto, Portugal. 8. Institute of Experimental Pathology, Faculty of Medicine, University of Coimbra, 3004-531 Coimbra, Portugal.
Abstract
(1) Background: Alveolar bone defects or decreased alveolar bone height and width may have different causes, such as cleft palate. Regenerative procedures in oro-dental defects are challenging due to anatomical factors and the distinct cell populations involved. The iliac crest bone graft remains the gold-standard for cleft palate closure. However, tissue regeneration approaches have been employed and their outcome reviewed, but no conclusions have been made about which one is the gold-standard. (2) Methods: this umbrella review aims to critically appraise the effectiveness of the current approaches in bone defects regeneration in non-syndromic patients with cleft palate. A search was performed in PubMed, Cochrane Library, Scopus, Web of Science and EMBASE databases. (3) Results: Systematic reviews of randomized and non-randomized controlled trials with or without meta-analysis were included. Nine articles were included in the qualitative analysis and five in the quantitative one. The included studies quality was evaluated with AMSTAR2. (4) Conclusions: The use of new regenerative strategies, such as bone morphogenic protein 2, appears to provide similar results regarding bone volume, filling, and height to the standard technique with the iliac crest bone graft.
(1) Background: Alveolar bone defects or decreased alveolar bone height and width may have different causes, such as cleft palate. Regenerative procedures in oro-dental defects are challenging due to anatomical factors and the distinct cell populations involved. The iliac crest bone graft remains the gold-standard for cleft palate closure. However, tissue regeneration approaches have been employed and their outcome reviewed, but no conclusions have been made about which one is the gold-standard. (2) Methods: this umbrella review aims to critically appraise the effectiveness of the current approaches in bone defects regeneration in non-syndromicpatients with cleft palate. A search was performed in PubMed, Cochrane Library, Scopus, Web of Science and EMBASE databases. (3) Results: Systematic reviews of randomized and non-randomized controlled trials with or without meta-analysis were included. Nine articles were included in the qualitative analysis and five in the quantitative one. The included studies quality was evaluated with AMSTAR2. (4) Conclusions: The use of new regenerative strategies, such as bone morphogenic protein 2, appears to provide similar results regarding bone volume, filling, and height to the standard technique with the iliac crest bone graft.
Entities:
Keywords:
autogenous graft; biomaterials; bone grafting; cleft palate; regenerative