Fat grafting in patients with cleft lip and palate: A systematic review.

This systematic review aims to compare different fat-grafting techniques for cleft lip and palate repair. A search was conducted in PubMed, Embase, Cochrane Library, gray literature and reference lists of selected articles. A total of 25 articles were included, 12 on closure of palatal fistula and 13 on cleft lip repair. The rate of complete resolution of palatal fistula ranged from 88.6% to 100% in studies with no control group, whereas in comparative studies patients receiving a fat graft showed better outcomes than those not receiving a graft. Evidence suggests that fat grafting can be indicated for the primary and secondary repair of cleft palate, with good results. The use of dermis-fat grafts in lip repair was associated with gains in surface area (11.5%), vertical height (18.5%-27.11%), and lip projection (20%). Fat infiltration was associated with increased lip volume (6.5%), vermilion show (31.68% ± 24.03%), and lip projection (46.71% ± 31.3%). The available literature suggests that fat grafting is a promising autogenous option for palate and fistula repair and for improvement of lip projection and scar aesthetics in patients with cleft. However, to develop a guideline, further studies are needed to confirm whether one technique is superior to the other.

Minimally invasive surgical and miniscrew-assisted rapid palatal expansion (MISMARPE) in adult patients.

The purpose of this study was to evaluate maxillary expansion, operative time and pain associated with a new minimally invasive surgical technique to treat maxillary hypoplasia in adult patients. Consecutive patients were included and prospectively analyzed. The technique consists in miniscrew-assisted rapid palatal expansion (MARPE), minimally invasive approach to maxillary osteotomies, latency period and activation period until the desired expansion. The parameters evaluated included operative time, treatment-related pain by the visual analog scale (VAS), and transverse maxillary expansion. The Shapiro-Wilk test was used to assess the normality of data distribution. A paired t-test was used to compare the data between T0 (preoperative) and T1 (postoperative - end of activation). The significance level was set at 5%. Eleven patients were included. Mean operative time was 24.11 min (14.4-32 min) and overall postoperative VAS score was 2.81 (0-9). A comparative analysis showed significant increases in maxillary width at the skeletal, alveolar, and dental levels (p < 0.0001 for all), with a mean range of 1.8 (SD 0.3) mm to 4.7 (SD 0.5) mm. The present minimally invasive surgical MARPE (MISMARPE) technique appears to yield good skeletal outcomes with minimal trauma. It might have potential for clinical use, but larger comparative studies are needed to confirm the clinical relevance of the approach.

Le Fort I osteotomy and soft tissue response: A retrospective cohort study comparing three different techniques.

The aim of this study was to evaluate the nasolabial soft tissues effects in three different Le Fort I osteotomy techniques using cone beam computed tomography (CBCT) evaluation of three-dimensional (3D) volume surfaces. A retrospective study was designed, and three groups were evaluated: group 1, patients who underwent conventional Le Fort I osteotomy; group 2, patients who underwent subspinal Le Fort I osteotomy; and group 3, patients who underwent conventional Le Fort I osteotomy with ANS recontouring or removal. CBCT evaluation was performed at two time points: T0, 1 week before surgery; T1, 6 months after surgery. A total of 90 patients were enrolled in this study (group 1: 30; group 2: 30; group 3: 30). Mean maxillary advancement was 4.26 mm. For group 1, mean change in inter-alar width was 2.29 ± 1.57 mm (minimum -2mm; maximum 6.1 mm; for group 2 it was 1.20 ± 1.56 mm (minimum -1.7 mm; maximum 5.9 mm), and for group 3 was 1.84 ± 1.76 mm (minimum -2.3 mm; maximum 5.9 mm). For group 1, mean change in alar base width was 1.69 ± 2.32 mm (minimum -4.8 mm; maximum 6,1 mm); in group 2 it was 0.85 ± 2.08 mm (minimum -4mm; maximum 6 mm), and group 3 was 1.21 ± 1.83 mm (minimum -2mm; maximum 5 mm). Results showed statistically significant differences in nasolabial area (P < 0.001). Within the limitations of the study it seems that subspinal Le Fort I osteotomy should be preferred when the priority is to avoid changes to the nasolabial region.