Comparison of early and conventional autogenous secondary alveolar bone graft in children with cleft lip and palate: A systematic review
Bibliographic record
Abstract
PURPOSE: The literature is scarce on studies comparing secondary alveolar bone graft (SABG) performed early at approximately 5-6 years and at the conventional time at 9-11 years. This systematic literature review(SLR) aimed to compare clinical outcomes after two different timings of SABG in children with unilateral and bilateral cleft lip and palate. METHODS: The inclusion criteria were autogenous iliac grafts and the following study designs: case control, cohort, clinical controlled trial (CCT), randomized CCT (RCCT), and previous SLRs. Ovid MEDLINE, Ovid EMBASE, Web of Science, Scopus, Cochrane, ProQuest and Google Scholar were the primary databases. Two calibrated examiners worked independently to select the articles. The MINORS evaluation method for surgical non-RCTs was used to assess for quality. RESULTS: 1,111 articles were retrieved and 19 qualified. Different clinical and radiographic outcomes such as bone level, periodontal status, canine eruption and cleft-side tooth survival were evaluated by different assessment methods such as CBCT volume, computed tomography, periodontal evaluation, panoramic, intraoral radiographs, and Bergland scale. No RCCT or meta-analysis was found. None of the studies received the ideal score, which is 16 for non-comparison studies and 24 for comparison studies. CONCLUSION: Methodological variation, lack of standardization for initial cleft dimension and low-quality level rendered a fair comparison unfeasible. Although further studies are necessary, it can be assumed that early SABG also can be an acceptable option, but this was based on a single study with a reasonable level of evidence.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".