Comparison of autologous and heterologous bone graft stability effects for filling maxillary bone gap after Le Fort I osteotomy.
BACKGROUND
The amount of postoperative maxillary relapse of two different bone graft materials after Le Fort I osteotomy were compared in this study.


OBJECTIVE
The aim of this study is to compare postoperative maxillary relapse rates using heterologous and autologous graft materials after Le Fort I osteotomy.


METHODS
A total of 80 patients who had developmental malocclusion were analyzed retrospectively in this study. Twenty nine (36.2%) and 51 (63.8%) patients underwent Le Fort I osteotomy, and Le Fort I and bilateral sagittal split ramus osteotomy (two-jaw surgery), respectively. Forty two (52.5%) maxillary bone gaps were filled with heterologous bone grafts (group A) and 38 (47.5%) were filled with autologous bone grafts (group B) after Le Fort I osteotomy. The cephalometric graphics and measurements were taken before (T1), 1 week after (T2), and 1 year after (T3) the surgery. The results were documented and determined by the Dolphin imaging 10.5 (Dolphin Imaging, Chatsworth, Calif.) computer program for skeletal relapse. Whether or not the relationship between group A's and B's maxillary relapse rates was evaluated in the postoperative period.


RESULTS
It was observed that both graft materials have positive effects on maxillary relapse rate in the postoperative period. When the groups are compared to each other, the relapse rates were similar between group A (8.3%) and group B (10.8%) (p>0.05).


CONCLUSIONS
Heterologous bone graft material (Osteoplant®-Flex) is thought to be a good alternative to autologous grafts in decreasing the relapse rates and reducing the morbidity of the donor area of the patients who underwent Le Fort I osteotomy.
Department of Plastic Reconstructive and Aesthetic Surgery, Cukurova University, Turkey.
Cengiz
C
Eser
Department of Plastic Reconstructive and Aesthetic Surgery, Cukurova University, Turkey.
Eyüphan
E
Gencel
Department of Plastic Reconstructive and Aesthetic Surgery, Cukurova University, Turkey.
Mahmut
M
Gökdoğan
Department of Plastic Reconstructive and Aesthetic Surgery, Cukurova University, Turkey.
Erol
E
Kesiktaş
Department of Plastic Reconstructive and Aesthetic Surgery, Cukurova University, Turkey.
Metin
M
Yavuz
D000293:Adolescent; D000328:Adult; D000818:Animals; D064592:Autografts; D018786:Bone Substitutes / Q000009:adverse effects / Q000627:therapeutic use*; D016025:Bone Transplantation / Q000009:adverse effects / Q000379:methods*; D002508:Cephalometry; D005260:Female; D064593:Heterografts; D006736:Horses; D006801:Humans; D008297:Male; D008310:Malocclusion / Q000151:congenital / Q000175:diagnosis / Q000601:surgery*; D008437:Maxilla / Q000002:abnormalities / Q000000981:diagnostic imaging / Q000601:surgery*; D019340:Osteotomy, Le Fort; D011859:Radiography; D012189:Retrospective Studies; D013997:Time Factors; D016896:Treatment Outcome; D055815:Young Adult
D018786:Bone Substitutes