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

The aim of this article is to present the pediatric dentistry and orthodontic treatment protocol of rehabilitation of cleft lip and palate patients performed at the Hospital for Rehabilitation of Craniofacial Anomalies - University of So Paulo (HRAC-USP). Pediatric dentistry provides oral health information and should be able to follow the child with cleft lip and palate since the first months of life until establishment of the mixed dentition, craniofacial growth and dentition development. Orthodontic intervention starts in the mixed dentition, at 8-9 years of age, for preparing the maxillary arch for secondary bone graft procedure (SBGP). At this stage, rapid maxillary expansion is performed and a fixed palatal retainer is delivered before SBGP. When the permanent dentition is completed, comprehensive orthodontic treatment is initiated aiming tooth alignment and space closure. Maxillary permanent canines are commonly moved mesially in order to substitute absent maxillary lateral incisors. Patients with complete cleft lip and palate and poor midface growth will require orthognatic surgery for reaching adequate anteroposterior interarch relationship and good facial esthetics.

Retrospective Clinical Study of 988 Dual Acid-Etched Implants Placed in Grafted and Native Bone for Single-Tooth Replacement

Purpose: To evaluate the influence of sex, implant characteristics, and bone grafting on the survival rate of dual acid-etched (DAE) implants. Materials and Methods: Patients treated with internal-hex DAE implants for single-tooth replacement in a military dental clinic between January 2005 and December 2010 were included in this study. Clinical data related to implant characteristics, implant location, presence of grafted bone, and implant failures were collected. The primary outcome was implant loss. The survival rate was analyzed using the Kaplan-Meier method. Cox regression modeling was used to determine which factors would predict implant failure. Results: DAE implants were evaluated in a total of 988 patients (80.3% men). Twenty-four (2.4%) implants failed, most were cylindric (54.2%) with regular platforms (70.8%) and were 10 mm long (58.3%). The failure rate was 2.4% for the anterior maxilla, 3.3% for the posterior maxilla, 1.6% for the anterior mandible, and 2.0% for posterior mandible. The cumulative survival rate was 97.6%. The failure rate was 8.8% in implants placed after sinus augmentation, 7.3% in bone block-grafted areas, and 1.6% in native bone. Based on multivariable analysis (Cox regression), sinus augmentation and bone block grafting had a statistically significant effect on implant failure; the hazard ratios were 5.5 and 4.6, respectively. Conclusion: The results revealed that DAE implants had high survival rates, and no influence of sex, location, shape, diameter, or length on failure rates could be observed. However, a significant association was observed between failure and presence of bone graft in the implant area. Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants 2012;27:1243-1248