Alveolar bone grafting and gingivoperiosteoplasty in bilateral cleft lip and palate.

PURPOSE OF REVIEW: Gingivoperiosteoplasty (GPP) and alveolar bone grafting (ABG) procedures have a vast history. There have been many publications regarding ABG and secondary ABG, with and without presurgical infant orthopedics (PSIO), in bilateral cleft lip and palate patients. There is little long-term data available describing results of both techniques. RECENT FINDINGS: The interdisciplinary approach to primary and secondary surgical procedures has proven to be beneficial for patients with bilateral cleft lip and palate. In the neonates, naso-alveolar molding (NAM) has been found to optimize the aesthetic outcome as well as re-approximating the arches to facilitate GPP. During the mixed dentition stage, arch preparation/expansion before the secondary ABG procedure improves arch morphology, restores the functional interarch relationship, and facilitates surgery. SUMMARY: This review aims to highlight the key points of both the procedures and why combining both procedures along with PSIO procedures such as NAM might be helpful for the patients in the long term.

A Comparative Evaluation of Accuracy of the Dies Affected by Tray Type, Material Viscosity, and Pouring Sequence of Dual and Single Arch Impressions- An In vitro Study.

INTRODUCTION: The clinician's skill, impression techniques, and materials play a very important role in recording fine details in an impression for accuracy of fixed partial denture prosthesis. Impression of prepared teeth and of the opposing arch can be recorded simultaneously by dual-arch trays, while the full arch metal trays are used for impressions of prepared teeth in one arch. AIM: To measure and compare the accuracy of working dies made from impressions with metal and plastic dual arch trays and metal full arch trays, for two viscosities of impression material and by changing the sequence of pour of working and non-working sides. MATERIALS AND METHODS: A balanced design with independent samples was used to study the three variables (tray type, impression material viscosity, and pouring sequence). An impression made by dual arch trays and single arch trays were divided in to three groups (Group A-plastic dual arch tray, Group B-metal dual arch tray, Group C-full arch metal stock tray). Out of these three groups, two groups (Group A and B) were subdivided in to four subgroups each and one group (Group C) was subdivided in to two subgroups. A sample size of 30 was used in each subgroup yielding a total 300 impressions in three groups or ten subgroups. Impressions were made of a machined circular stainless steel die. All three dimensions (Occlusogingival, Mesiodistal, and Buccolingual) of the working dies as well as stainless steel standard die were measured three times, and the mean was used for the three standard sample values to which all working dies means were compared. Statistical analysis used for this study was a 3-factor analysis of variance with hypothesis testing at α =0.05. RESULTS: With respect to the selection of impression material viscosity statistically significant differences were found in the dies for the buccolingual and mesiodistal dimensions. Metal dual arch trays were slightly more accurate in the mesiodistal dimension in comparison to the plastic trays in reference of tray selection and in view of pouring sequence no differences were observed in occlusogingival dimension but in buccolingual and mesiodistal dimensions nonworking side was more accurate. CONCLUSION: The gypsum dies produced from the dual arch impressions were generally smaller in all three dimensions than the stainless steel standard die. Plastic dual-arch trays were more accurate with rigid impression material and there was not statistically significant difference for sequence of pouring. Metal dual-arch trays were more accurate with monophase impression material and working side was more accurate. Stock metal full arch trays were more accurate for monophase impression material.

Role of tongue flap in palatal fistula repair: A series of 41 cases.

INTRODUCTION: Despite the improved techniques of repair of cleft palate, fistula occurrence is still a possibility either due to an error in the surgical technique or due to the poor tissue quality of the patient. Though commonly the fistula closure is established by use of local flaps but at times the site and the size of the fistula make use of local flaps for its repair a remote possibility. The use of tongue flaps because of the central position in the floor of the mouth, mobility and the diversity of positioning the flaps make it a method of choice for closure of anterior palatal fistulae than any other tissues. The aim of this study was to analyse the utility of tongue flap in anterior palatal fistula repair. MATERIALS AND METHODS: We had 41 patients admitted to our hospital during the period 2006-2012 for repair of palatal fistula and were enrolled into the study. In the entire 41 cases, fistula was placed anteriorly. The size of the fistulae varied from 2 cm × 1.5 cm to 5.5 cm × 3 cm. The flaps were divided after 3-week and final inset of the flap was done. OBSERVATION AND RESULT: None of the patients developed flap necrosis, in one case there was the dehiscence of the flap, which was reinset and in one patient there was bleeding. None of our patients developed functional deformity of the tongue. Speech was improved in 75% cases. CONCLUSION: Leaving apart its only drawback of two-staged procedure and transient patient discomfort, tongue flap remains the flap of choice for managing very difficult and challenging anterior palatal fistulae.