Early or delayed palatoplasty in complete unilateral cleft lip and palate patients? A systematic review of the effects on maxillary growth (original) (raw)
Related papers
Plastic and Aesthetic Research , 2020
Aim: The purpose of this study was to ascertain the effect of surgical procedures and their timing on maxillofacial growth in unilateral cleft lip and palate (UCLP) patients through a systematic literature review. Results: Eleven articles were included. An important finding was the wide range of treatment protocols. Eight studies performed a multistage procedure, whereas three studies applied a simultaneous repair of cleft lip, palate, and alveolus in a single surgical session. The findings in these articles were based on cephalometric measures. Comparative tables were constructed regarding method of study and time and technique of closure. Conclusion: The results of the articles were conflicting, and it was clear that more research on this subject is necessary. Overall, most studies agreed on the important factor of palatoplasty in maxillofacial growth. The most common finding was a retrusive maxillary growth in comparison to a noncleft control group. This was illustrated by a negative effect on A-point-nasion-B-point. A lot of discussion remains on the effect of lip closure. However,
Stomatologija / issued by public institution "Odontologijos studija" ... [et al.], 2014
OBJECTIVES. Cleft lip palate is congenital growth disease with unknown etiology, probably linked to both genetically and external causes. The aim of this work consists in presenting the effects of these diseases on cranio facial growth and the surgical protocols described in literature. MATERIALS AND METHODS. The literature review articles conducted by Medline ranged from 1998 to 2011 have been selected. The key words of the research were "cleft lip palate", "cleft lip palate facial growth", "cleft lip palate surgery". The inclusion criteria were articles that analyzed surgical protocols and the growth of unilateral lip and palate clefts, the timing repair of lip, palate and alveolus. We excluded case reports, studies without control group in the sample and the other types of publication as thesis or conference presentation. 60 articles had the selection criteria of the research. RESULTS. The cleft lip and palate is one of the most common birth defects ...
Journal of Cranio-Maxillofacial Surgery, 2015
Objective: To study the growth and speech outcomes in children who were operated on for unilateral cleft lip and palate (UCLP) by a single surgeon using two different treatment protocols. Material and methods: A total of 200 consecutive patients with nonsyndromic UCLP were randomly allocated to two different treatment protocols. Of the 200 patients, 179 completed the protocol. However, only 85 patients presented for follow-up during the mixed dentition period (7e10 years of age). The following treatment protocol was followed. Protocol 1 consisted of the vomer flap (VF), whereby patients underwent primary lip nose repair and vomer flap for hard palate single-layer closure, followed by soft palate repair 6 months later; Protocol 2 consisted of the two-flap technique (TF), whereby the cleft palate (CP) was repaired by two-flap technique after primary lip and nose repair. GOSLON Yardstick scores for dental arch relation, and speech outcomes based on universal reporting parameters, were noted. Results: A total of 40 patients in the VF group and 45 in the TF group completed the treatment protocols. The GOSLON scores showed marginally better outcomes in the VF group compared to the TF group. Statistically significant differences were found only in two speech parameters, with better outcomes in the TF group. Conclusions: Our results showed marginally better growth outcome in the VF group compared to the TF group. However, the speech outcomes were better in the TF group.
Journal of Cranio-Maxillofacial Surgery, 2003
Introduction: The aim was to study the differences in early maxillary growth following the use of two techniques for soft palate repair in complete cleft lip, alveolus and palate patients. Material and methods: Out of sixty-four primary soft palate repairs, two model samples (one of each) having been matched (gender, age, cleft type, maxillary anterior and posterior width at time of soft palate repair) were selected from the groups treated according either to Furlow or to Widmaier-Perko. The Wilcoxon Test for small samples was used to test for differences. Results: At the age of 4 years, posterior transverse cleft size was significantly smaller by 2.26 mm on average (SD 2.23) in the Furlow sample. The posterior maxillary segment had grown sagitally 1.5 mm (SD 0.76) more in the Furlow sample. At the age of 4 years, all other parameters, including inter-canine point and intertuberosity distances did not significantly differ between the two samples. Conclusion: Transverse posterior growth was not statistically different between the samples and seemed to be within normal limits in both. There was more sagittal growth in the posterior maxillary segment in the Furlow sample, possibly related to less fibrotic contracture in the posterior hard palate and the soft palate. The transverse posterior cleft size was more reduced in the Furlow sample. This could not be correlated with the techniques chosen to close the hard palate cleft at the age of 4 years. r 2003 European Association for Cranio-Maxillofacial Surgery.
European Journal of Orthodontics, 2019
Objectives: To assess differences in craniofacial growth at 8 years of age according to the different protocols for primary cleft surgery in the Scandcleft project. Design and setting: Prospective, randomized, controlled clinical trial (RCT) involving 10 centres, including non-syndromic Caucasians with unilateral cleft lip and palate (UCLP). In Trial 1, a common surgical method (1a) with soft palate closure at 3-4 months of age and hard palate closure at 12 months of age was tested against similar surgery but with hard palate repair at 36 months (delayed hard palate closure) (1b). In Trial 2, the common method (2a) was tested against simultaneous closure of both hard and soft palate at 1 year (2c). In Trial 3, the common method (3a) was tested against hard palate closure together with lip closure at 3 months of age and soft palate closure at 1 year of age (3d). Participants were randomly allocated by use of a dice. Operator blinding was not possible but all raters of all outcomes were blinded. Subjects and methods: The total number of participating patients at 8 years of age was 429. Lateral cephalograms (n = 408) were analysed. The cephalometric angles SNA and ANB were chosen for assessing maxillary growth for this part of the presentation. Results: Within each trial (Trial 1a/1b, Trial 2a/2c, and Trial 3a/3d), there was no difference in cephalometric values between the common and the local arm. There were no statistically significant differences in the SNA and ANB angles between the common arm in Trial 1a (mean SNA 77.8, mean ANB 2.6) and Trial 2a (mean SNA 79.8, mean ANB 3.6) and no difference between Trial 1a and Trial 3a, but a statistical difference could be seen between Trial 2a and Trial 3a (mean SNA 76.9, mean ANB 1.7). However, the confidence interval was rather large. Intra-and inter-rater reliability were within acceptable range.
The effect of lip closure on palatal growth in patients with unilateral clefts
PeerJ, 2020
Objectives The objective of this study was to compare maxillary dimensions and growth in newborns with Complete Unilateral Cleft Lip and Palate (UCLP) to healthy newborns before and after cheiloplasty. Additionally, a palatal growth curve is constructed to give more information about the natural growth before surgical intervention. Methods Twenty-eight newborns with complete UCLP were enrolled in this study. Multiple plaster-casts of each child during their first year were collected and grouped in before and after cheiloplasty. A previous developed semi-automatic segmentation tool was used to assess the maxillary dimensions and were compared to a healthy control group. Z-scores were calculated to indicate differences between the two populations and if cheiloplasty had influence on maxillary growth. Furthermore, the prediction model created in a previous study was used to indicate differences between predictions and the outcome in UCLP measurements. The analysis was tested for inter-...