Revue de stomatologie et de chirurgie maxillo-faciale · 2006
[Flap techniques in secondary alveoloplasty: a comparison between two types of flap].
Сравнительное исследованиеОценочное исследованиеСтатьяНазвание и аннотация: Перевод в очереди
Обработка статьи · этапы, ошибки и управление
Загрузка состояния…
Ошибки и ограничения
История · было → стало
Состояние обновляется каждые 5 секунд, пока блок открыт. Процент показывается только там, где известен объём работы. Пауза останавливает продолжение этапа; текущий запрос к источнику может завершиться.
Hugentobler M, Dojcinovic I, Richter M
Аннотация
INTRODUCTION: The aim of this study was to compare two surgical soft tissue coverage techniques of secondary alveolar grafts in cleft lip and palate patients: the gingival mucoperiostal slidind flap and the mucosal rotation flap.
MATERIAL AND METHOD: Fifty-two secondary alveolar bone grafts were retrospectively included in the study. Four clinical parameters were evaluated: post-operative dehiscence, oro-nasal fistula relapse, canine eruption through the graft and postoperative secondary periodontal procedures.
RESULTS: Gingival mucoperiostal flaps had less postoperative dehiscence, more fistula relapse and needed less secondary periodontal procedures.
DISCUSSION: Based on this study and on literature data, gingival mucoperiostal flap provides better quality of soft tissue coverage. Flap design doesn't influence canine eruption. Bone graft complications are increased with poor oral hygiene, if canine eruption occurred before surgery and in older patients.
MATERIAL AND METHOD: Fifty-two secondary alveolar bone grafts were retrospectively included in the study. Four clinical parameters were evaluated: post-operative dehiscence, oro-nasal fistula relapse, canine eruption through the graft and postoperative secondary periodontal procedures.
RESULTS: Gingival mucoperiostal flaps had less postoperative dehiscence, more fistula relapse and needed less secondary periodontal procedures.
DISCUSSION: Based on this study and on literature data, gingival mucoperiostal flap provides better quality of soft tissue coverage. Flap design doesn't influence canine eruption. Bone graft complications are increased with poor oral hygiene, if canine eruption occurred before surgery and in older patients.