Abstract
Background
Use of rhBMP2 has been demonstrated to be an ideal bone reconstructive material for alveolar clefts. There is a lack of such studies from Indian cleft patients.
Aim
To compare rhBMP2 alveolar cleft repair and iliac crest graft treated cases.
Materials and method
Retrospective analysis of rhBMP2 alveolar cleft repair and iliac crest graft treated cases.
Predictor variables
Gender, type of surgery and type of cleft
Outcome variables
Total surgery time, blood loss at surgical and harvest site, length of scar, number of days on antibiotics, serratiopeptidase and NSAIDS; sutured days, number of days to regain masticatory functions, pain VAS on 5th postoperative day and at harvest site on a scale of 10; duration of edema, number of working days lost, time until child could walk ‘normally’; mean efficiency of bone deposition.
Statistics
Descriptive, paired ‘t’ test, one way ANOVA
Results
Difference between rhBMP2 and iliac crest graft treated cases in terms of antibiotic use, serratopeptidase, NSAIDS, pain at surgical site, edema, number of working lost for attendees and number of days to walk unaided were statistically significant.
The mean length of surgery for unilateral cases was 87.60 minutes whereas it was 108.75 minutes for bilateral cases (p=0.003).
The mean efficiency of bone deposition as revealed loss in radiolucency for rhBMP2 treated cases was 91.74% whereas iliac crest graft cases showed a 87.96% (p=0.006).
Discussion
It is evident that one has to reject null hypothesis in favor of the alternate hypothesis. The rhBMP2 is better than the conventional gold standard of iliac crest graft for restoration of maxillary alveolar clefts in terms of considered surgical, post surgical and radiographic planimetry parameters.
Conclusion
Sparing children from the procedure of iliac crest harvesting is by itself a compelling reason to favor rhBMP2 use. It avoids the unnecessary surgery, loss of blood and postoperative morbidity of iliac crest harvesting.
Keywords: rhBMP2, Alveolar cleft
Full Text
The Full Text of this article is available as a PDF (185.7 KB).
References
- 1.Chin M., Ng T., Tom W.K., Carstens M. Repair of alveolar clefts with recombinant Human Bone morphogenetic Protein (rhBMP2) in patients with Clefts. J Craniofac Surg. 2005;16(5):778–789. doi: 10.1097/01.scs.0000166802.49021.01. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 2.Clokie C.M., Sandor G.K. Reconstruction of 10 Major Mandibular defects using bioimplants containing BMP7. J Can Dent Assoc. 2008;74(1):67–72. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 3.Wozney J.M. Bone morphogenetic proteins. Prog Growth Factor Res. 1989;1(4):267–280. doi: 10.1016/0955-2235(89)90015-X. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 4.Wozney J.M., Rosen V., Byrne M., Celeste A.J., Moutsatsos I., Wang E.A. Growth factors influencing bone development. J Cell Sci Suppl. 1990;13:149–156. doi: 10.1242/jcs.1990.supplement_13.14. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 5.Yasko A.W., Lane J.M., Fellinger E.J., Rosen V., Wozney J.M., Wang E.A. The healing of segmental bone defects, induced by recombinant human bone morphogenetic protein (rhBMP-2). A radiographic, histological, and biomechanical study in rats. J Bone Joint Surg Am. 1992;74(5):659–670. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 6.Sykaras N., Opperman L.A. Bone morphogenetic proteins (BMPs): how do they function and what can they offer the clinician? J Oral Sci. 2003;45(2):57–73. doi: 10.2334/josnusd.45.57. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 7.Kawakami S., Hiura K., Yokozeki M., Takahashi T., Seike T., Nakanishi H., Moriyama K. Longitudinal Evaluation of Secondary Bone Grafting Into the Alveolar Cleft. Cleft Palate Craniofac J. 2003;40(6):569–576. doi: 10.1597/02-052. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 8.Boyne P.J., Marx R.E., Nevins M., Triplett G., Lazaro E., Lilly L.C., Alder M., Nummikoski P. A feasibility study evaluating rhBMP-2/absorbable collagen sponge for maxillary sinus floor augmentation. Int J Periodontics Restorative Dent. 1997;17(1):11–25. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 9.Balaji S.M. Mandibular cystic defect: A composite approach with rhBMP-2 and rib graft. J Maxillofac Oral Surg. 2009;8(1):27–30. doi: 10.1007/s12663-009-0007-x. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 10.Perri B., Cooper M., Lauryssen C., Anand N. Adverse swelling associated with use of rh-BMP-2 in anterior cervical discectomy and fusion: a case study. Spine J. 2007;7(2):235–239. doi: 10.1016/j.spinee.2006.04.010. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 11.Vig K.W. Alveolar bone grafts: the surgical/orthodontic management of the cleft maxilla. Ann Acad Med Singapore. 1999;28(5):721–727. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 12.Dickinson B.P., Ashley R.K., Wasson K.L., O’Hara C., Gabbay J., Heller J.B., Bradley J.P. Reduced morbidity and improved healing with bone morphogenic protein-2 in older patients with alveolar cleft defects. Plast Reconstr Surg. 2008;121(1):209–217. doi: 10.1097/01.prs.0000293870.64781.12. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 13.Polly D.W., Jr, Ackerman S.J., Shaffrey C.I., Ogilvie J.W., Wang J.C., Stralka S.W., Mafilios M.S., Heim S.E., Sandhu H.S. A cost analysis of bone morphogenic protein versus autogenous iliac crest bone graft in single-level anterior lumbar fusion. Orthopaedics. 2003;26(10):1027–1037. doi: 10.3928/0147-7447-20031001-12. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 14.Ackerman S.J., Mafilios M.S., Polly D.W., Jr Economic Evaluation of Bone Morphogenetic Protein Versus Autogenous Iliac Crest Bone Graft in Single-Level Anterior Lumbar Fusion An Evidence-Based Modeling Approach. Spine (Phila Pa 1976) 2002;27(16S):S94–S99. doi: 10.1097/00007632-200208151-00017. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]