Volumetric comparison of autogenous bone and tissue-engineered bone replacement materials in alveolar cleft repair: a systematic review and meta-analysis

The goal of reconstruction of the alveolar cleft in patients with cleft lip and palate is to improve the quality of tissue, the structural stability, and increase the volume of bone. This study is a systematic review with meta-analysis of volumetric bony filling using autogenous bone and various tissue-engineered bone substitutes. We made an electronic search on MEDLINE, EMBASE, SCOPUS, WEB OF SCIENCE, "grey" publications (materials and research produced by organisations outside traditional channels for commercial or academic publishing and distribution), and relevant cross references according to the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) guidelines. Studies that reported the outcomes of volumetric grafting were included in the meta-analysis. Of 1276 studies, 26 were included in the meta-analysis. Pooled analysis of 25 studies that used autogenous bone showed a significant reduction in the volume of the cleft equivalent to 62.0% bone fill (95% CI 54.3 to 69.6), in contrast to 10 studies that used a tissue-engineered material and reported bone filling of 68.7% (95% CI 54.5 to 82.8). The estimated sizes of pooled effects across studies showed that there was no significant difference between the two major intervention groups (p value 0.901). Our statistical analysis showed that autogenous bone grafts did not differ significantly from tissue-engineered materials in their ability to fill clefts. Systematic review registration: International Prospective Register of Systematic Reviews, PROSPERO (CRD42017065045).

Comparison of mucosal and mucoperiosteal wound cover for the treatment of medication-related osteonecrosis of the jaw lesions: a retrospective cohort study

OBJECTIVES

Actually, there is no detailed guidance on how to deal with wound closure after surgical removal of medication-related osteonecrosis of the jaw (MRONJ) lesions. This study attempts to compare the difference in outcome between the mucosal and the mucoperiosteal flap closure after surgery.

PATIENTS AND METHODS

In this retrospective monocentric cohort study, patients (n = 61; 35 female/26 male) suffering from MRONJ and requiring surgical therapy at the University of Aachen between 2013 and 2015 were included. Due to intra-institutional variances, one group was treated with the mucosal, the other group with the mucoperiosteal technique. The success rate, i.e., mucosal closure and no relapse at the point of follow-up, was evaluated and compared. All patients were clinically investigated for the postoperative follow-up during a special consultation appointment.

RESULTS

The success rates between the different techniques after 2 years follow-up were very similar. In the group of mucosal wound closure, 22 of 29 (75.86%) patients revealed mucosal integrity without signs of MRONJ. The rate in the mucoperiosteal wound closure group was almost identical (24 of 32 (75%)).

CONCLUSION

No differences in the success rates between the two different techniques could be evaluated.

CLINICAL RELEVANCE

The results of this study suggest that the complete removal of the necrotic bone might have a higher impact on the success rates than the technique of the wound closure. Due to the fact that the mucoperiosteal wound closure technique offers a better overview of the extent of the MRONJ lesion, the authors advise to use this technique.