MedPath

Evaluation of Bilateral Alveolar Cleft Grafting With Micro Plate Stabilization Versus Conventional Grafting Technique

Not Applicable
Not yet recruiting
Conditions
Alveolar Cleft
Registration Number
NCT06523855
Lead Sponsor
Cairo University
Brief Summary

The aim of the study is to enhance the maxillary segments stability during graft healing using microplate fixation to be compared with conventional grafting technique regarding gained bone quality and quantity.

Detailed Description

In conventional cleft grafting technique, there is always risk for grafted bone resorption and recurrence of fistula formation. So alveolar cleft grafting using anterior iliac crest bone particles combined with microplate fixation of maxillary segments will work more efficient and prevent the fore mentioned risk of graft resorption and recurrence of fistula.

In conventional cleft grafting techniques, most of the cases reported in literature raised a debate regarding the final gained amount of bone, with subsequent recurrence of oronasal fistula. In this study, alveolar cleft grafting using anterior iliac crest bone particles combined with microplate fixation of maxillary segments and the conventional grafting technique will be compared to evaluate which technique will offer better reconstruction of the alveolar ridge with maintained bone width and height.

Recruitment & Eligibility

Status
NOT_YET_RECRUITING
Sex
All
Target Recruitment
12
Inclusion Criteria
  • Patients with bilateral complete maxillary alveolar cleft at the age of mixed dentition (between 9 and 12 years old).
  • repaired cleft lip.
  • Patients with medical history that did not hinder surgical intervention and have adequate proper oral hygiene.
  • Both genders males and females will be included.
Exclusion Criteria
  • General contraindications to surgical intervention of the area.
  • Patients with unilateral maxillary alveolar cleft.
  • Patients with ill repaired cleft lip that will hinder the appropriate reconstruction of the alveolar cleft
  • Subjected to irradiation in the head and neck area less than 1 year before surgery.
  • Untreated periodontitis.
  • Poor oral hygiene.
  • Uncontrolled diabetes.
  • Immunosuppressed or immunocompromised.
  • Active infection or severe inflammation in the area intended for graft placement
  • Unable to open mouth sufficiently to accommodate the surgical tooling.
  • Patients participating in other studies, if the present protocol could not be properly followed.
  • Unable to attend a 9-month follow-up.

Study & Design

Study Type
INTERVENTIONAL
Study Design
PARALLEL
Primary Outcome Measures
NameTimeMethod
Bone density immediate versus 6 months postoperatively.6 months

bone density changes are measured using CBCT after 6 months via HU

Secondary Outcome Measures
NameTimeMethod
Bone width and height immediate versus 6 months postoperatively6 months

bone height and width changes are measured using CBCT after 6 months in mm

Trial Locations

Locations (1)

Faculty of Dentistry, Cairo university

🇪🇬

Cairo, Egypt

Faculty of Dentistry, Cairo university
🇪🇬Cairo, Egypt
Mohamed Omara, PhD
Contact
01144452862
mohammed.omara@dentistry.cu.edu.eg

MedPath

Empowering clinical research with data-driven insights and AI-powered tools.

© 2025 MedPath, Inc. All rights reserved.