Introduction: Recombinant human bone morphogenetic protein-2 (rhBMP-2) is one of the most commonly used osteogenic agents in the craniofacial skeleton. This study reviews the safety and efficacy of rhBMP-2 as applied to craniofacial reconstruction and assesses the level of scientific evidence currently available. Methods: An extensive literature search was conducted. Randomized controlled trials (RCTs), case series and reports in the English language as well as Food and Drug Administration reports were reviewed. Studies were graded using the Oxford Center for Evidence-Based Medicine Levels of Evidence Scale. Data heterogeneity precluded quantitative analysis. Results: Seventeen RCTs (Levels of evidence: Ib-IIb) were identified evaluating the use of rhBMP-2 in maxillary sinus, alveolar ridge, alveolar cleft, or cranial defect reconstruction (sample size: 7–160; age: 8–75 years). Study designs varied in rigor, with follow-up ranging 3–36 months, and outcome assessment relying on clinical exam, radiology, and/or histology. There was wide variation in rhBMP-2 concentrations, carriers, and controls. Most studies evaluating rhBMP-2 for cranial defect closure, mandibular reconstruction, or distraction osteogenesis consisted of retrospective cohorts and case reports. The evidence fails to support RhBMP-2 use in maxillary sinus wall augmentation, calvarial reconstruction, mandibular reconstruction, or distraction osteogenesis. RhBMP-2 may be effective in alveolar reconstruction in adults, but is associated with increased postoperative edema. Conclusions: A risk–benefit ratio favoring rhBMP-2 over alternative substitutes remains to be demonstrated for most applications in plastic and reconstructive surgery. Long-term data on craniofacial growth is lacking, and using rhBMP-2 in patients younger than 18 years remains off-label.

As medicine becomes more complex, there is pressure for new and more innovative educational methods. Given the economic burden associated with in-person simulation, healthcare, including the realm of surgical education, has begun employing virtual reality (VR). Potential benefits of the addition of VR to surgical learning include increased pre-operative resident exposure to surgical techniques and procedures and better patient safety outcomes. However, these new technological advances, such as VR, may not replicate organic tissues or accurately simulate medical care and surgical scenarios, creating unrealistic pseudo-environments. Similarly, while advancements have been made, there are ongoing disparities concerning the utilization of these technologies. These disparities include aspects such as the availability of stable internet connections and the cost of implementing these technologies. In accordance with other innovative technologies, VR possesses upfront economic costs that may preclude equitable use in different academic centers around the world. As such, VR may further widen educational quality between high- and low-resource nations. This analysis integrates recent innovations in VR technology with existing discourse on global health and surgical equality. In doing so, it offers preliminary guidance to ensure that the implementation of VR occurs in an equitable, safe, and sustainable fashion.

Objective: This systematic review aims to evaluate nasoalveolar molding (NAM) in the context of burden of care defined as physical, psychosocial, or financial burden on caregivers. Search Methods: Following Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses guidelines, 5 databases were searched from inception through December 24, 2019, for keywords and subject headings pertaining to cleft lip and/or palate and NAM. Eligibility Criteria: Clinical studies on NAM with reference to physical (access to care, number of visits, distance traveled), psychosocial (caregiver perceptions, family interactions, breast milk feeding), and financial (direct and indirect costs) burden were included. Data Collection and Analysis: Study selection was performed by 2 independent reviewers. Results: The search identified 1107 articles and 114 articles remained for qualitative synthesis. Burden of care domains were discussed but not measured in 43% of articles and only 25% assessed burden of care through a primary outcome. Of these, 20 articles reported on physical, 8 articles on psychosocial, and 12 articles on financial burden. Quality of evidence is limited by study design and risk of bias. Conclusion: Nasoalveolar molding has been indiscriminately associated with burden of care in the literature. Although NAM may not be the ideal treatment option for all patients and families, the physical considerations are limited when accounting for the observed psychosocial advantages. Financial burden appears to be offset, but further research is required. Teams should directly assess the impact of this early intervention on the well-being of caregivers and advance strategies that improve access to care.

Background: The authors present outcomes analysis of the nasoalveolar molding treatment protocol in patients with a cleft followed from birth to facial maturity. Methods: A single-institution retrospective review was conducted of cleft patients who underwent nasoalveolar molding between 1990 and 2000. Collected data included surgical and orthodontic outcomes and incidence of gingivoperiosteoplasty, alveolar bone grafting, surgery for velopharyngeal insufficiency, palatal fistula repair, orthognathic surgery, nose and/or lip revision, and facial growth. Results: One hundred seven patients met inclusion criteria (69 with unilateral and 38 with bilateral cleft lip and palate). Eighty-five percent (91 of 107) underwent gingivoperiosteoplasty (unilateral: 78 percent, 54 of 69; bilateral: 97 percent, 37 of 38). Of those patients, 57 percent (52 of 91) did not require alveolar bone grafting (unilateral: 59 percent, 32 of 54; bilateral: 54 percent, 20 of 37). Twelve percent (13 of 107) of all study patients underwent revision surgery to the lip and/or nose before facial maturity (unilateral: 9 percent, six of 69; bilateral: 18 percent, seven of 38). Nineteen percent (20 of 107) did not require a revision surgery, alveolar bone grafting, or orthognathic surgery (unilateral: 20 percent, 14 of 69; bilateral: 16 percent, six of 38). Cephalometric analysis was performed on all patients with unilateral cleft lip and palate. No significant statistical difference was found in maxillary position or facial proportion. Average age at last follow-up was 20 years (range, 15 years 4 months to 26 years 10 months). Conclusions: Nasoalveolar molding demonstrates a low rate of soft-tissue revision and alveolar bone grafting, and a low number of total operations per patient from birth to facial maturity. Facial growth analysis at facial maturity in patients who underwent gingivoperiosteoplasty and nasoalveolar molding suggests that this proposal may not hinder midface growth. CLINICAL QUESTION/LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Therapeutic, IV.

Background: The authors present an institutional experience treating congenital and acquired temporomandibular joint (TMJ) ankylosis, detailing outcomes and potential risk factors of recurrence. Methods: Retrospective chart review identified patients with TMJ ankylosis (1976–2019). Clinical records, operative reports, and imaging studies were reviewed for demographics, surgical operations, and ankylosis including maximal interincisal opening (MIO) and re-ankylosis. Results: Forty-four TMJs with bony ankylosis were identified in 28 patients (mean age at any initial mandibular surgery: 3.7; range:0–14 years). Follow-up was 13.7 ± 5.9 years. Sixteen (57.1%) patients had bilateral ankylosis; 27(96.4%) had syndromes. Nine patients had congenital ankylosis, 16 had iatrogenic ankylosis (4.5 ± 3.7 years from initial distraction osteogenesis or autologous mandibular reconstruction) referred from outside institutions in 6 instances, and 3 had post-infectious ankylosis. Patients having their first mandibular operation at a younger age had more frequent reoperations for recurrent TMJ ankylosis, although this did not reach statistical significance. Mean improvement in MIO was 21.4 ± 7.3 mm. Ankylosis recurred in 21 (75%) patients. Five patients with congenital TMJ ankylosis required gastrostomy and remained at least partially dependent. Five patients had tracheostomy at the time of TMJ ankylosis surgery: 2 were eventually decannulated and 3 required repeat tracheostomy after ankylosis recurrence and remained tracheostomy-dependent. Conclusion: The clinical course of TMJ ankylosis in children affected by craniofacial differences is complex and typically involves a high rate of recurrence and multiple reoperations despite initial improvement in postoperative MIO. Younger age at initial mandibular surgery and number of operations require further investigation as potential predictors of recurrent TMJ ankylosis as well as tracheostomy and gastrostomy dependence.