Surgical repair of hard palate cleft with absorbable membrane: the new surgical technique and its clinical application.

This study evaluated a new surgical technique with absorbable membrane to repair hard palate cleft without extensive mobilisation of the mucoperiosteum. From 2001 to 2002, 32 selected patients with complete unilateral clefts underwent this surgical operation. The traditional flap surgical operation was performed at the soft palate, uvula and anterior alveolar cleft. The absorbable membrane was implanted to the hard palate cleft gap to guide the regeneration of the mucoperiosteum. The patients were followed up for 1-6 months after the operation. The speech assessment was carried out 12 months after the operation. Of 32 patients, 30 were successfully operated by this method and no obvious complications occurred. Primary healing on tissue defect of hard palate was obtained in 27 patients and secondary healing in 3 patients. Eighty percent of the 30 patients had good or excellent speech 12 months after the operation. The operation failed in 2 patients. The surgical technique with absorbable membrane to repair hard palate appears to have several valuable advantages including the decreased area of the hard palate involved and favourable outcome for speech in the majority of cases.

[1]  M. Kellomäki,et al.  Bone Tissue Engineering: Treatment of Cranial Bone Defects in Rabbits Using Self-Reinforced Poly-L,D-lactide 96/4 Sheets , 2002, The Journal of craniofacial surgery.

[2]  Gavin De Aguiar,et al.  Modifying the two-stage cleft palate surgical correction. , 2002, The Cleft palate-craniofacial journal : official publication of the American Cleft Palate-Craniofacial Association.

[3]  W. Tian,et al.  [Preliminary study of closing cleft of soft palate at an early age for complete cleft palate]. , 2001, Hua xi kou qiang yi xue za zhi = Huaxi kouqiang yixue zazhi = West China journal of stomatology.

[4]  Rod J. Rohrich,et al.  Optimal timing of cleft palate closure. , 2000, Plastic and reconstructive surgery.

[5]  A. Hugoson,et al.  Healing following GTR treatment of bone defects distal to mandibular 2nd molars after surgical removal of impacted 3rd molars. , 2000, Journal of clinical periodontology.

[6]  S. Murai,et al.  Effects of bioabsorbable and non-resorbable barrier membranes on bone augmentation in rabbit calvaria. , 1998, Journal of periodontology.

[7]  A. Lohmander-Agerskov Speech outcome after cleft palate surgery with the Göteborg regimen including delayed hard palate closure. , 1998, Scandinavian journal of plastic and reconstructive surgery and hand surgery.

[8]  P. Alberius,et al.  Experience with e-PTFE membrane application to bone grafting of cleft maxilla. , 1995, International journal of oral and maxillofacial surgery.

[9]  D. Sell,et al.  A screening assessment of cleft palate speech (Great Ormond Street Speech Assessment). , 1994, European journal of disorders of communication : the journal of the College of Speech and Language Therapists, London.

[10]  T. Waldrop,et al.  Closure of oroantral communication using guided tissue regeneration and an absorbable gelatin membrane. , 1993, Journal of periodontology.

[11]  L. Furlow Cleft Palate Repair by Double Opposing Z‐Plasty , 1986, Plastic and reconstructive surgery.

[12]  J. Curtin,et al.  Early cleft palate repair and speech outcome. , 1982, Plastic and reconstructive surgery.

[13]  W. Schweckendiek,et al.  Primary veloplasty: long-term results without maxillary deformity. a twenty-five year report. , 1978, The Cleft palate journal.

[14]  T. Gibson MODERN TRENDS IN PLASTIC SURGERY , 1964 .