The Journal of Contemporary Dental Practice

Register      Login



Volume / Issue

Online First

Related articles

VOLUME 23 , ISSUE 7 ( July, 2022 ) > List of Articles


Evaluation of Two Computerized Methods for Presurgical Volumetric Analysis in Secondary Alveolar Cleft Bone Grafting: A Prospective Study

Mohammad Abdelhamid, Hamdy Abdelmegeed Marzook, Eman Abdel Salam Yousef

Keywords : Alveolar bone grafting, Alveolar cleft, Cone–beam computed tomography

Citation Information : Abdelhamid M, Marzook HA, Yousef EA. Evaluation of Two Computerized Methods for Presurgical Volumetric Analysis in Secondary Alveolar Cleft Bone Grafting: A Prospective Study. J Contemp Dent Pract 2022; 23 (7):688-694.

DOI: 10.5005/jp-journals-10024-3366

License: CC BY-NC 4.0

Published Online: 10-11-2022

Copyright Statement:  Copyright © 2022; The Author(s).


Aim: The purpose of this study is to evaluate presurgical computerized volumetric analysis in secondary alveolar cleft bone grafting (SABG) and the time taken for calculation using cone–beam computed tomography (CBCT) via two different software programs. Materials and methods: Twelve patients with unilateral alveolar clefts were investigated using CBCT. Two independent investigators did presurgical volumetric analysis for each patient's CBCT data using two different methods. Method A involved On-Demand 3D software (Cybermed Inc., Korea), while method B involved InVesalius 3 software (CTI, Brazil). The volume outcomes and time spent for measurements were compared between both software programs. Interobserver reliability and descriptive and t-test statistics were computed, and statistical significance was considered when p ≤ 0.05. Results: There was not a statistically significant difference between clefts’ volumetric measurements by the two methods via both investigators (p = 0.186 and 0.069). However, the difference in time taken for these measurements between the two methods was statistically significant (p < 0.001). Intraclass correlation coefficient (ICC) values indicated excellent interobserver reliability for measurements by method A (ICC ~ 0.998), and moderate reliability for method B (ICC ~ 0.626). Conclusions: Both software programs used in this study had comparable volumetric computation. Method B took much less calculating time than method A. The interobserver reliability was high for both methods. Clinical significance: These both investigated software programs may show a clinical implication for presurgical alveolar cleft volume measurement, thus reducing the surgical operating time and adequately selecting a donor site with a congruent sufficient amount of bone grafts.

PDF Share
  1. Dixon MJ, Marazita ML, Beaty TH, et al. Cleft lip and palate: Understanding genetic and environmental influences. Nat Rev Genet 2011;12(3):167–178. DOI: 10.1038/nrg2933.
  2. Mundra LS, Lowe KM, Khechoyan DY. Alveolar bone graft timing in patients with cleft lip and palate. J Craniofac Surg 2022;33(1):206–210. DOI: 10.1097/SCS.0000000000007890.
  3. Du F, Li B, Yin N, et al. Volumetric analysis of alveolar bone defect using three-dimensional-printed models versus computer-aided engineering. J Craniofac Surg 2017;28(2):383–386. DOI: 10.1097/SCS.0000000000003301.
  4. Scalzone A, Flores-Mir C, Carozza D, et al. Secondary alveolar bone grafting using autologous versus alloplastic material in the treatment of cleft lip and palate patients: systematic review and meta-analysis. Prog Orthod 2019;20(1):1–10. DOI: 10.1186/s40510-018-0252-y.
  5. Mahajan R, Ghildiyal H, Khasgiwala A, et al. Evaluation of secondary and late secondary alveolar bone grafting on 66 unilateral cleft lip and palate patients. J Plast Surg 2017;25(3):194–199. DOI: 10.1177/2292550317728035.
  6. Ma'amon AR, Telfah H. Secondary alveolar bone grafting: The dilemma of donor site selection and morbidity. Br J Oral Maxillofac Surg 2008;46(8):665–670. DOI: 10.1016/j.bjoms.2008.07.184.
  7. Liao YF, Huang CS. Presurgical and postsurgical orthodontics are associated with superior secondary alveolar bone grafting outcomes. J Craniomaxillofac Surg 2015;43(5):717–123. DOI: 10.1016/j.jcms.2015.03.005.
  8. da Silva Filho OG, Boiani E, de Oliveira Cavassan A, et al. Rapid maxillary expansion after secondary alveolar bone grafting in patients with alveolar cleft. Cleft Palate Craniofac J 2009;46(3):331–338. DOI: 10.1597/07-205.1.
  9. Chen GC, Sun M, Yin NB, et al. A novel method to calculate the volume of alveolar cleft defect before surgery. J Craniofac Surg 2018;29(2):342–346. DOI: 10.1097/SCS.0000000000004181.
  10. Choi HS, Choi HG, Kim SH, et al. Influence of the alveolar cleft type on preoperative estimation using 3D CT assessment for alveolar cleft. Arch Plast Surg 2012;39(05):477–482. DOI: 10.5999/aps.2012.39.5.477.
  11. Stoop CC, Janssen NG, Ten Harkel TC, et al. A novel and practical protocol for three-dimensional assessment of alveolar cleft grafting procedures. Cleft Palate Craniofac J 2022:10556656221074210. DOI: 10.1177/10556656221074210.
  12. Kindelan JD, Nashed RR, Bromige MR. Radiographic assessment of secondary autogenous alveolar bone grafting in cleft lip and palate patients. Cleft Palate Craniofac J 1997;34(3):195–198. DOI: 10.1597/1545-1569_1997_034_0195_raosaa_2.3.co_2.
  13. Witherow H, Cox S, Jones E, et al. A new scale to assess radiographic success of secondary alveolar bone grafts. Cleft Palate Craniofac J 2002;39(3):255–260. DOI: 10.1597/1545-1569_2002_039_0255_anstar_2.0.co_2.
  14. Ahlqvist J, Eliasson S, Welander U. The effect of projection errors on cephalometric length measurements. Eur J Orthod 1986;8(3):141–148. DOI: 10.1093/ejo/8.3.141.
  15. Linderup BW, Küseler A, Jensen J, et al. A novel semiautomatic technique for volumetric assessment of the alveolar bone defect using cone–beam computed tomography. Cleft Palate Craniofac J 2015;52(3):47–55. DOI: 10.1597/13-287.
  16. Etemadi MSh, Attar BM, Mehdizadeh M, et al. Evaluation of the CBCT imaging accuracy in the volumetric assessment of unilateral alveolar cleft. J Stomatol Oral Maxillofac Surg 2021;122(4):e1–e5. DOI: 10.1016/j.jormas.2021.06.006.
  17. Albuquerque MA, Gaia BF, Cavalcanti MGP. Comparison between multislice and cone–beam computerized tomography in the volumetric assessment of cleft palate. Oral Surg Oral Med Oral Pathol Oal Radiol Endod 2011;112(2):249–257. DOI: 10.1016/j.tripleo.2011.03.006.
  18. Zhou WN, Xu YB, Jiang HB, et al. Accurate evaluation of cone–beam computed tomography to volumetrically assess bone grafting in alveolar cleft patients. J Craniofac Surg. 2015;26(6):e535–e953. DOI: 10.1097/SCS.0000000000002034.
  19. Kasaven C, Ivekovic S, McIntyre G, et al. Validation of the volumetric measurement of a simulated maxillary alveolar bone defect using cone–beam computed tomography. Cleft Palate Craniofac J 2013;50(6):115–120. DOI: 10.1597/12-161.
  20. Yu X, Guo R, Li W. Comparison of 2-and 3-dimensional radiologic evaluation of secondary alveolar bone grafting of clefts: a systematic review. Oral Surg Oral Med Oral Pathol Oal Radiol 2020;130(4):455–463. DOI: 10.1016/j.oooo.2020.04.815.
  21. Janssen NG, Schreurs R, Bittermann GK, et al. A novel semi-automatic segmentation protocol for volumetric assessment of alveolar cleft grafting procedures. J Craniomaxillofac Surg 2017;45(5):685–689. DOI: 10.1016/j.jcms.2017.02.018.
  22. de Rezende Barbosa GL, Wood JS, Pimenta LA, et al. Comparison of different methods to assess alveolar cleft defects in cone–beam CT images. Dentomaxillofac Radiol 2016;45(2):20150332. DOI: 10.1259/dmfr.20150332.
  23. Phienwej K, Chaiworawitkul M, Jotikasthira D, et al. Comparison of preoperative measurement methods of alveolar cleft volume using cone–beam computed tomography between computer simulation and water displacement methods. Cleft Palate Craniofac J 2021:10556656211055642. DOI: 10.1177/10556656211055642.
  24. Deçolli Y, Nemţoi A, Susanu S, et al. A software tool used in 3D evaluation of the alveolar bone defect in bilateral cleft lip and palate patients. Rev Med Chir Soc Med Nat Iasi 2014;118(3):841–846. PMID: 25341310.
  25. Ruppert GC, Reis LO, Amorim PH, et al. Touchless gesture user interface for interactive image visualization in urological surgery. World J Urol 201;30(5):687–691. DOI: 10.1007/s00345-012-0879-0.
  26. Attar BM, Naghdi N, Sh ME, et al. Chin symphysis bone, allograft, and platelet-rich fibrin: is the combination effective in repair of alveolar cleft? J Oral Maxillofac Surg 2017;75(5):1026–1035. DOI: 10.1016/j.joms.2016.12.026.
  27. Koo TK, Li MY. A Guideline of selecting and reporting intraclass correlation coefficients for reliability research. J Chiropr Med 2016;15(2):155–163. DOI: 10.1016/j.jcm.2016.02.012.
  28. Murray J. Gene/environment causes of cleft lip and/or palate. Clin Genet 2002;61(4):248–256. DOI: 10.1034/j.1399-0004.2002.610402.x.
  29. Hasan HA, Alam MK, Yusof A, et al. Accuracy of three dimensional CT craniofacial measurements using mimics and InVesalius software programs. J Hard Tissue Biol 2016;25(2):219–224. DOI: 10.2485/jhtb.25.219.
  30. Serindere G, Belgin CA, Serindere M. Volumetric and morphological analysis of condyle and glenoid fossa on computed tomography. Eur Arch Otorhinolaryngol 2020;277(9):2581–2587. DOI: 10.1007/s00405-020-06078-5.
  31. Kesztyűs A, Würsching T, Nemes B, et al. Evaluation of 3D visualization, planning and printing techniques in alveolar cleft repair, and their effect on patients’ burden. J Stomatol Oral Maxillofac Surg 2021. DOI: 10.1016/j.jormas.2021.10.007.
PDF Share
PDF Share

© Jaypee Brothers Medical Publishers (P) LTD.