Influence of surgical technique and timing of primary repair on interarch relationship in UCLP: A randomized clinical trial.

Szczegóły
Abstrakt

Tytuł:: Influence of surgical technique and timing of primary repair on interarch relationship in UCLP: A randomized clinical trial.
Autorzy:: Ozawa TO; Department of Orthodontics, Hospital of Rehabilitation of Craniofacial Anomalies, University of São Paulo, Bauru, Brazil.
Dutka JCR; Department of Speech-Language and Audiology, Bauru Dental School and Hospital for Rehabilitation of Craniofacial Anomalies, University of São Paulo, Bauru, Brazil.
Garib D; Department of Orthodontics, Hospital of Rehabilitation of Craniofacial Anomalies, University of São Paulo, Bauru, Brazil.; Department of Orthodontics, Bauru Dental School and Hospital for Rehabilitation of Craniofacial Anomalies, University of São Paulo, Bauru, Brazil.
Lauris RCMC; Department of Orthodontics, Hospital of Rehabilitation of Craniofacial Anomalies, University of São Paulo, Bauru, Brazil.
Almeida AM; Department of Orthodontics, Hospital of Rehabilitation of Craniofacial Anomalies, University of São Paulo, Bauru, Brazil.
Brosco TVS; Department of Plastic Surgery, Hospital for Rehabilitation of Craniofacial Anomalies, University of São Paulo, Bauru, Brazil.
Lauris JRP; Department of Orthodontics, Bauru Dental School and Hospital for Rehabilitation of Craniofacial Anomalies, University of São Paulo, Bauru, Brazil.; Department of Public Health, Bauru Dental School, University of São Paulo, Bauru, Brazil.
Dolce C; University of Florida College of Dentistry, Gainesville, FL, USA.
Pegoraro-Krook MI; Department of Speech-Language and Audiology, Bauru Dental School and Hospital for Rehabilitation of Craniofacial Anomalies, University of São Paulo, Bauru, Brazil.
Źródło:: Orthodontics & craniofacial research [Orthod Craniofac Res] 2021 May; Vol. 24 (2), pp. 288-295. Date of Electronic Publication: 2020 Nov 23.
Typ publikacji:: Journal Article; Randomized Controlled Trial
Język:: English
Imprint Name(s):: Original Publication: Oxford, UK : Blackwell Munksgaard, c2002-
MeSH Terms:: Cleft Lip*/surgery
Cleft Palate*/surgery
Child ; Dental Arch/surgery ; Humans ; Infant ; Lip ; Treatment Outcome
References:: da Silva Filho OG, Ramos AL, Abdo RC. The influence of unilateral cleft lip and palate on maxillary dental arch morphology. Angle Orthod. 1992;62:283-290.
Normando AD, da Silva Filho OG, Capelozza FL. Influence of surgery on maxillary growth in cleft lip and/or palate patients. J Craniomaxillofac Surg. 1992;20:111-118.
Semb G. A study of facial growth in patients with unilateral cleft lip and palate treated by the Oslo CLP Team. Cleft Palate Craniofac J. 1991;28(1):1-21;discussion 46-28.
Choudhary S, Cadier MA, Shinn DL, Shekhar K, McDowall RA. Effect of Veau-Wardill-Kilner type of cleft palate repair on long-term midfacial growth. Plast Reconstr Surg. 2003;111(2):576-582;discussion 583-575.
Mars M, Asher-McDade C, Brattstrom V, et al. A six-center international study of treatment outcome in patients with clefts of the lip and palate: Part 3. Dental arch relationships. Cleft Palate Craniofac J. 1992;29:405-408.
Ross RB. Treatment variables affecting facial growth in complete unilateral cleft lip and palate. Cleft Palate J. 1987;24:5-77.
Chiu YT, Liao YF, Chen PK. Initial cleft severity and maxillary growth in patients with complete unilateral cleft lip and palate. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop. 2011;140:189-195.
Honda Y, Suzuki A, Ohishi M, Tashiro H. Longitudinal study on the changes of maxillary arch dimensions in Japanese children with cleft lip and/or palate: infancy to 4 years of age. Cleft Palate Craniofac J. 1995;32:149-155.
Liao YF, Prasad NK, Chiu YT, Yun C, Chen PK. Cleft size at the time of palate repair in complete unilateral cleft lip and palate as an indicator of maxillary growth. Int J Oral Maxillofac Surg. 2010;39:956-961.
Shaw WC, Asher-McDade C, Brattstrom V, et al. A six-center international study of treatment outcome in patients with clefts of the lip and palate: Part 1. Principles and study design. Cleft Palate Craniofac J. 1992;29:393-397.
Shaw DW. Global strategies to reduce the health care burden of craniofacial anomalies: report of WHO meetings on international collaborative research on craniofacial anomalies. Cleft Palate Craniofac J. 2004;41:238-243.
Long RE Jr, Hathaway R, Daskalogiannakis J, et al. The Americleft study: an inter-center study of treatment outcomes for patients with unilateral cleft lip and palate part 1. Principles and study design. Cleft Palate Craniofac J. 2011;48:239-243.
Asher-McDade C, Brattstrom V, Dahl E, et al. A six-center international study of treatment outcome in patients with clefts of the lip and palate: Part 4. Assessment of nasolabial appearance. Cleft Palate Craniofac J. 1992;29:409-412.
Molsted K, Asher-McDade C, Brattstrom V, et al. A six-center international study of treatment outcome in patients with clefts of the lip and palate: Part 2. Craniofacial form and soft tissue profile. Cleft Palate Craniofac J. 1992;29:398-404.
Shaw WC, Dahl E, Asher-McDade C, et al. A six-center international study of treatment outcome in patients with clefts of the lip and palate: Part 5. General discussion and conclusions. Cleft Palate Craniofac J. 1992;29:413-418.
Daskalogiannakis J, Mercado A, Russell K, et al. The Americleft study: an inter-center study of treatment outcomes for patients with unilateral cleft lip and palate part 3. Analysis of craniofacial form. Cleft Palate Craniofac J. 2011;48:252-258.
Hathaway R, Daskalogiannakis J, Mercado A, et al. The Americleft study: an inter-center study of treatment outcomes for patients with unilateral cleft lip and palate part 2. Dental arch relationships. Cleft Palate Craniofac J. 2011;48:244-251.
Russell K, Long RE Jr, Hathaway R, et al. The Americleft study: an inter-center study of treatment outcomes for patients with unilateral cleft lip and palate part 5. General discussion and conclusions. Cleft Palate Craniofac J. 2011;48:265-270.
Heliovaara A, Kuseler A, Skaare P, et al. Scandcleft randomised trials of primary surgery for unilateral cleft lip and palate: 6. Dental arch relationships in 5 year-olds. J Plast Surg Hand Surg. 2017;51:52-57.
Semb G, Enemark H, Friede H, et al. A Scandcleft randomised trials of primary surgery for unilateral cleft lip and palate: 1. Planning and management. J Plast Surg Hand Surg. 2017;51:2-13.
Meazzini MC, Capello AV, Ventrini F, et al. Long-Term Follow-Up of UCLP Patients: Surgical and Orthodontic Burden of Care During Growth and Final Orthognathic Surgery Need. Cleft Palate Craniofac J. 2015;52:688-697.
Williams WN, Seagle MB, Nackashi AJ, et al. A methodology report of a randomized prospective clinical trial to assess velopharyngeal function for speech following palatal surgery. Control Clin Trials. 1998;19:297-312.
Williams WN, Seagle MB, Pegoraro-Krook MI, et al. Prospective clinical trial comparing outcome measures between Furlow and von Langenbeck Palatoplasties for UCLP. Ann Plast Surg. 2011;66:154-163.
Mars M, Plint DA, Houston WJ, Bergland O, Semb G. The Goslon Yardstick: a new system of assessing dental arch relationships in children with unilateral clefts of the lip and palate. Cleft Palate J. 1987;24:314-322.
Nollet PJ, Katsaros C, Huyskens RW, Borstlap WA, Bronkhorst EM, Kuijpers-Jagtman AM. Cephalometric evaluation of long-term craniofacial development in unilateral cleft lip and palate patients treated with delayed hard palate closure. Int J Oral Maxillofac Surg. 2008;37:123-130.
Capelozza Filho L, Normando AD, da Silva Filho OG. Isolated influences of lip and palate surgery on facial growth: comparison of operated and unoperated male adults with UCLP. Cleft Palate Craniofac J. 1996;33:51-56.
Agrawal K, Panda KN. Use of vomer flap in palatoplasty: revisited. Cleft Palate Craniofac J. 2006;43:30-37.
Rossell-Perry P, Cotrina-Rabanal O, Figallo-Hudtwalcker O, Gonzalez-Vereau A. Effect of relaxing incisions on the maxillary growth after primary unilateral cleft palate repair in mild and moderate cases: a randomized clinical trial. Plast Reconstr Surg Glob Open. 2017;5:e1201.
Furlow LT Jr. Cleft palate repair by double opposing Z-plasty. Plast Reconstr Surg. 1986;78:724-738.
Kappen I, Bittermann GKP, Schouten RM, et al. Long-term mid-facial growth of patients with a unilateral complete cleft of lip, alveolus and palate treated by two-stage palatoplasty: cephalometric analysis. Clin Oral Investig. 2017;21:1801-1810.
Kernan WN, Viscoli CM, Makuch RW, Brass LM, Horwitz RI. Stratified randomization for clinical trials. J Clin Epidemiol. 1999;52:19-26.
Grant Information:: R01 DE016037-5 United States DE NIDCR NIH HHS; Coordination for the Improvement of Higher Education Personnel (CAPES, Brazil); R01 DE016037-5 United States DE NIDCR NIH HHS
Contributed Indexing:: Keywords: Goslon Yardstick; dental arch relationship; growth outcomes; plastic surgery; randomized clinical trial; treatment outcome measures; unilateral cleft lip and palate
Entry Date(s):: Date Created: 20201024 Date Completed: 20210414 Latest Revision: 20210414
Update Code:: 20240105
DOI:: 10.1111/ocr.12435
PMID:: 33098171
: Czasopismo naukowe

Full Text Finder

Objective: To compare dental arch relationships in children with unilateral cleft lip and palate (UCLP) between two surgical techniques for repair of cleft lip/palate and two ages of palate repair.
Settings and Sample: Dental models were taken for a group of 448 subjects at a mean age of 7 years and were evaluated by means of the Goslon Yardstick. The patients studied consisted of an initial group of 673 infants with complete UCLP randomized into 8 study groups according to lip repair procedures (Millard versus Spina techniques); palate repair procedures (von Langenbeck versus Furlow techniques); and palate repair timing (early: 9 to 12 months versus late: 15-18 months).
Methods: Four surgeons performed all surgeries. Dependent variables included the following: lip repair technique, palate repair technique, age at time of palate repair and surgeon; with sex as an independent variable. The data were analysed using a general linear model (P < .05).
Results: There were no significant differences for occlusal index scores as a function of lip or palate surgical technique, palatal repair timing and sex. Significant differences were found for occlusal index scores as a function of the surgeon.
Conclusion: Dental arch relationships were not influenced by lip and palatal repair techniques or patient age at palatal repair. The surgeon was the major factor that influenced the dental arch relationship outcome.
(© 2020 John Wiley & Sons A/S. Published by John Wiley & Sons Ltd.)

Informacja