A Three-Dimensional Scale for the Qualitative and Quantitative Assessments of Secondary Alveolar Bone Grafting (SABG) in Unilateral Cleft Lip and Palate Patients Using Cone-Beam Computed Tomography (CBCT)

 

 Permissions and Reprints

Abstract

Background The objective of our study was to derive an objective assessment scale for three-dimensional (3D) qualitative and quantitative evaluation of secondary alveolar bone grafting (SABG) using cone-bone computed tomography (CBCT) in patients with unilateral cleft lip and palate (UCLP).

Methods CBCT scans for pre- and 3-month post-SABG were reviewed for bone volume, height, width, and density of the bony bridge formed in the cleft defect in 20 patients with UCLP. Basic descriptive and principal component analysis was used to extract the various sub-components of the scale. Spearman's correlation was used to check the validity of the scale, and intra-class coefficient (ICC) and Cronbach's α were calculated to establish the reliability and retest applicability of the scale.

Results Each CBCT scan was assessed in five areas: cementoenamel junction (CEJ), root apex, root midpoint, 3 and 6 mm below CEJ, and tabulated in percentiles of 20, 25, 40, 50, 60, and 75 for all the parameters (bone volume, density, and width). These scores were validated when correlated to the scale given by Kamperos et al. Cronbach's α for the domains demonstrated acceptable to excellent internal consistency. The ICC showed good test–retest reliability having a range of scores from 0.89 to 0.94.

Conclusion The proposed scale for the 3D assessment of SABG in patients with UCLP provides gradation for the objective assessment of the bony bridge. This gradation enables the qualitative and quantitative assessments of the bony bridge, thus allowing each clinician to judge SABG more conclusively.

Publication History

Article published online:
26 October 2022

© 2022. Association of Plastic Surgeons of India. This is an open access article published by Thieme under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution-NonDerivative-NonCommercial License, permitting copying and reproduction so long as the original work is given appropriate credit. Contents may not be used for commercial purposes, or adapted, remixed, transformed or built upon. (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/)

Thieme Medical and Scientific Publishers Pvt. Ltd.
A-12, 2nd Floor, Sector 2, Noida-201301 UP, India

• References

• 1 Dixon MJ, Marazita ML, Beaty TH, Murray JC. Cleft lip and palate: understanding genetic and environmental influences. Nat Rev Genet 2011; 12 (03) 167-178
  CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
• 2 Mossey PA, Little J, Munger RG, Dixon MJ, Shaw WC. Cleft lip and palate. Lancet 2009; 374 (9703): 1773-1785
  CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
• 3 Ma L, Hou Y, Liu G, Zhang T. Effectiveness of presurgical orthodontics in cleft lip and palate patients with alveolar bone grafting: a systematic review. J Stomatol Oral Maxillofac Surg 2021; 122 (01) 13-17
  CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
• 4 Chang C-S, Wallace CG, Hsiao Y-C. 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
  CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
• 5 Freitas JA, Garib DG, Oliveira M. et al. Rehabilitative treatment of cleft lip and palate: experience of the hospital for rehabilitation of craniofacial anomalies-USP (HRAC-USP)—part 2: pediatric dentistry and orthodontics. J Appl Oral Sci 2012; 20 (02) 268-281
  CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
• 6 Boyne PJ, Sands NR. Secondary bone grafting of residual alveolar and palatal clefts. J Oral Surg 1972; 30 (02) 87-92
  Google Scholar
• 7 Abyholm FE, Bergland O, Semb G. Secondary bone grafting of alveolar clefts. A surgical/orthodontic treatment enabling a non-prosthodontic rehabilitation in cleft lip and palate patients. Scand J Plast Reconstr Surg 1981; 15 (02) 127-140
  CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
• 8 Vandersluis YR, Fisher DM, Stevens K, Tompson BD, Lou W, Suri S. Comparison of dental outcomes in patients with nonsyndromic complete unilateral cleft lip and palate who receive secondary alveolar bone grafting before or after emergence of the permanent maxillary canine. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop 2020; 157 (05) 668-679
  CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
• 9 Wirthlin JO. The orthodontist's role in the management of patients with cleft lip and palate undergoing alveolar bone grafting. Semin Orthod 2017; 23 (03) 268-278
  CrossrefGoogle Scholar
• 10 Hynes PJ, Earley MJ. Assessment of secondary alveolar bone grafting using a modification of the Bergland grading system. Br J Plast Surg 2003; 56 (07) 630-636
  CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
• 11 Feichtinger M, Zemann W, Mossböck R, Kärcher H. Three-dimensional evaluation of secondary alveolar bone grafting using a 3D-navigation system based on computed tomography: a two-year follow-up. Br J Oral Maxillofac Surg 2008; 46 (04) 278-282
  CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
• 12 Hamada Y, Kondoh T, Noguchi K. et al. Application of limited cone beam computed tomography to clinical assessment of alveolar bone grafting: a preliminary report. Cleft Palate Craniofac J 2005; 42 (02) 128-137
  CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
• 13 Oberoi S, Chigurupati R, Gill P, Hoffman WY, Vargervik K. Volumetric assessment of secondary alveolar bone grafting using cone beam computed tomography. Cleft Palate Craniofac J 2009; 46 (05) 503-511
  CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
• 14 Dissaux C, Bodin F, Grollemund B. et al. Evaluation of success of alveolar cleft bone graft performed at 5 years versus 10 years of age. J Craniomaxillofac Surg 2016; 44 (01) 21-26
  CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
• 15 Parveen S, Husain A, Mascarenhas R, Reddy SG. Clinical utility of cone-beam computed tomography in patients with cleft lip palate: current perspectives and guidelines. J Cleft Lip Palate Craniofacial Anomalies 2018; 5 (02) 74-87
  CrossrefGoogle Scholar
• 16 Spin-Neto R, Gotfredsen E, Wenzel A. Impact of voxel size variation on CBCT-based diagnostic outcome in dentistry: a systematic review. J Digit Imaging 2013; 26 (04) 813-820
  CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
• 17 Kamburoğlu K, Murat S, Kolsuz E, Kurt H, Yüksel S, Paksoy C. Comparative assessment of subjective image quality of cross-sectional cone-beam computed tomography scans. J Oral Sci 2011; 53 (04) 501-508
  CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
• 18 De Mulder D, Cadenas de Llano-Pérula M, Jacobs R, Verdonck A, Willems G. Three-dimensional radiological evaluation of secondary alveolar bone grafting in cleft lip and palate patients: a systematic review. Dentomaxillofac Radiol 2018; 48 (01) 20180047
  CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
• 19 Stasiak M, Wojtaszek-Słomińska A, Racka-Pilszak B. Current methods for secondary alveolar bone grafting assessment in cleft lip and palate patients—a systematic review. J Craniomaxillofac Surg 2019; 47 (04) 578-585
  CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
• 20 Yu X, Guo R, Li W. Comparison of 2- and 3-dimensional radiologic evaluation of secondary alveolar bone grafting of clefts: a systematic review. Oral Surg Oral Med Oral Pathol Oral Radiol 2020; 130 (04) 455-463
  CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
• 21 Semb G, Brattström V, Mølsted K. et al. The Eurocleft study: intercenter study of treatment outcome in patients with complete cleft lip and palate. Part 4: relationship among treatment outcome, patient/parent satisfaction, and the burden of care. Cleft Palate Craniofac J 2005; 42 (01) 83-92
  CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
• 22 Zhang DZ, Xiao WL, Zhou R, Xue LF, Ma L. Evaluation of bone height and bone mineral density using cone beam computed tomography after secondary bone graft in alveolar cleft. J Craniofac Surg 2015; 26 (05) 1463-1466
  CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
• 23 Koç A, Kaya S. Is it possible to estimate volume of bone defects formed on dry sheep mandibles more practically by secondarily reconstructing section thickness of cone beam computed tomography images?. Dentomaxillofac Radiol 2021; 50 (03) 20200400
  CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
• 24 Barbosa GLR, Wood JS, Pimenta LA, de Almeida SM, Tyndall DA. Comparison of different methods to assess alveolar cleft defects in cone beam CT images. Dentomaxillofac Radiol 2016; 45 (02) 20150332
  CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
• 25 Pauwels R, Jacobs R, Singer SR, Mupparapu M. CBCT-based bone quality assessment: are Hounsfield units applicable?. Dentomaxillofac Radiol 2015; 44 (01) 20140238
  CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
• 26 Cassetta M, Stefanelli LV, Pacifici A, Pacifici L, Barbato E. How accurate is CBCT in measuring bone density? A comparative CBCT-CT in vitro study. Clin Implant Dent Relat Res 2014; 16 (04) 471-478
  CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
• 27 Witherow H, Cox S, Jones E, Carr R, Waterhouse N. A new scale to assess radiographic success of secondary alveolar bone grafts. Cleft Palate Craniofac J 2002; 39 (03) 255-260
  CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
• 28 Barbosa GLR, Emodi O, Pretti H. et al. GAND classification and volumetric assessment of unilateral cleft lip and palate malformations using cone beam computed tomography. Int J Oral Maxillofac Surg 2016; 45 (11) 1333-1340
  CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
• 29 Lever J, Krzywinski M, Altman N. Principal component analysis. Nat Methods 2017; 14 (07) 641-642
  CrossrefGoogle Scholar
• 30 Kamperos G, Theologie-Lygidakis N, Tsiklakis K, Iatrou I. A novel success scale for evaluating alveolar cleft repair using cone-beam computed tomography. J Craniomaxillofac Surg 2020; 48 (04) 391-398
  CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
• 31 Tavakol M, Dennick R. Making sense of Cronbach's alpha. Int J Med Educ 2011; 2: 53-55
  CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
• 32 Semb G. Effect of alveolar bone grafting on maxillary growth in unilateral cleft lip and palate patients. Cleft Palate J 1988; 25 (03) 288-295
  PubMedGoogle Scholar
• 33 Garcia MA, Yatabe M, Fuzer TU, Calvo AM, Trindade-Suedam IK. Ideal versus late secondary alveolar bone graft surgery: a bone-thickness cone-beam computed tomographic assessment. Cleft Palate Craniofac J 2018; 55 (03) 369-374
  CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
• 34 Fahradyan A, Tsuha M, Wolfswinkel EM, Mitchell KS, Hammoudeh JA, Magee III W. Optimal timing of secondary alveolar bone grafting: a literature review. J Oral Maxillofac Surg 2019; 77 (04) 843-849
  CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
• 35 Gomes OS, Carvalho RM, Faco R. et al. Influence of bone-anchored maxillary protraction on secondary alveolar bone graft status in unilateral complete cleft lip and palate. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop 2020; 158 (05) 731-737
  CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
• 36 Rosenstein SW, Long Jr RE, Dado DV, Vinson B, Alder ME. Comparison of 2-D calculations from periapical and occlusal radiographs versus 3-D calculations from CAT scans in determining bone support for cleft-adjacent teeth following early alveolar bone grafts. Cleft Palate Craniofac J 1997; 34 (03) 199-205
  CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
• 37 Razi T, Niknami M, Ghazani FA. Relationship between Hounsfield unit in CT scan and gray scale in CBCT. J Dent Res Dent Clin Dent Prospect 2014; 8 (02) 107-110
  Google Scholar