Changes in the Transverse Dimension of the Maxillary Arch of 5-Year-Olds Born With UCLP Since the Introduction of Nationwide Guidance

The influence of three different primary treatment protocols on 5-year-old maxillary growth in patients with complete unilateral cleft lip and palate

The study evaluated the effects of three different primary treatment protocols on maxillary growth in patients aged 5 years with complete unilateral cleft lip and palate (UCLP). The secondary objective was to assess the influence of initial cleft severity, family history of class III, and status of permanent lateral incisor on maxillary growth. In total, 54 patients with non-syndromic complete UCLP were included and grouped as follows: group An underwent lip adhesion, cheilorhinoplasty associated with tibial periosteal graft for hard palate repair, and finally veloplasty; group B underwent lip adhesion, then cheilorhinoplasty with intravelar veloplasty, and finally a hard-palate repair; group C underwent cheilorhinoplasty with intravelar veloplasty and then a hard-palate repair. Five-year maxillary growth was assessed on dental models, both clinically and digitally. No difference was found with GOSLON-Yardstick scoring. Five-year measurements showed that group C tended to have the best maxillary arch morphology (p = 0.012). Initial cleft severity did not impact maxillary growth, but status of permanent lateral incisor and family history of class III did (p = 0.019 and p = 0.004, respectively). In patients aged 5 years, the two-stage approach appeared to be the least detrimental to growth development. Predictive factors for growth retardation included the absence of lateral incisor and a family history of class III.

Comparison of craniomaxillofacial morphology in children with unilateral cleft lip and palate treated with/without presurgical nasoalveolar molding - a retrospective study with a mean age of 5 years

OBJECTIVES

To three-dimensionally assess differences in craniomaxillofacial skeletal development in patients with operated unilateral cleft lip and palate (UCLP) treated with/without presurgical nasoalveolar molding (PNAM) with a mean age of 5 years.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

Cone-beam CT radiographs of 30 patients with UCLP who had undergone PNAM and 34 patients with UCLP who did not receive PNAM were analyzed. The data were stored in DICOM file format and were imported into the Dolphin Imaging program for 3D image reconstruction and landmark identification. 33 landmarks, 17 linear and three angular variables representing craniofacial morphology were analyzed and compared by using the Mann-Whitney U tests.

RESULTS

The vast majority of linear variables and 3D coordinates of landmark points reflecting craniofacial skeletal symmetry were not significantly different between the two groups. In terms of craniofacial skeletal development, the PNAM group had a significantly smaller anterior nasal spine offset in the midsagittal plane and a greater maxillary length compared to the non-PNAM group.

CONCLUSIONS

Evaluations performed in early childhood showed that treatment with/without PNAM in the neonatal period was not a major factor influencing craniomaxillofacial hard tissue development in patients with UCLP; moreover, PNAM treatment showed significant correction of skeletal deviation at the base of the nose.

CLINICAL RELEVANCE

Follow-up in early childhood has shown that PNAM treatment administered during the neonatal stage does not impede maxillary development and has benefits in correcting nasal floor deviation. It is a viable option for improving nasal deformity in children with unilateral cleft lip and palate.

Effects of nasoalveolar molding on maxillary arch dimensions and malocclusion characteristics in primary dentition patients with cleft lip and palate

BACKGROUND

Nasoalveolar molding (NAM) is a presurgical orthopedic technique used in the management of cleft lip and palate deformities. Despite the widespread use of NAM therapy, there is a need for further investigation to assess its specific effects on arch dimensions and malocclusion characteristics.

AIM

To evaluate the effects of NAM therapy on maxillary arch dimensions and malocclusion characteristics in patients with unilateral cleft lip and palate (UCLP) and bilateral cleft lip and palate (BCLP).

DESIGN

Patients in primary dentition were referred to the Institutional Department of Orthodontics. The NAM group consisted of 21 patients with UCLP (mean age 4.7 ± 0.7 years) and 12 patients with BCLP (mean age 4.8 ± 0.7 years). Sixteen patients with UCLP (mean age 4.9 ± 0.9 years) and five patients with BCLP (mean age 5.4 ± 1.1 years) were included in the non-NAM group. The plaster models of all patients were digitized. Dental arch dimensions and malocclusion characteristics were analyzed via digital software. One-way ANOVA with Bonferroni correction was used for statistical analysis.

RESULTS

Intercanine and intermolar widths showed statistically significant differences according to the cleft type (p < .01). There was no statistically significant effect of NAM therapy on maxillary arch parameters and malocclusion characteristics (p > .05). The prevalence of anterior crossbite was 12.1% in the NAM group and 23.8% in the non-NAM group.

CONCLUSION

NAM therapy did not affect the maxillary arch dimensions and malocclusion characteristics in patients with UCLP and BCLP. The cleft type was the main factor, leading to a significant difference in maxillary widths.

Effects of two flap palatoplasty versus furlow palatoplasty with buccal myomucosal flap on maxillary arch dimensions in patients with cleft palate at the primary dentition stage: a cohort study

OBJECTIVE

The objective of this study was to evaluate the effect of two flap palatoplasty (TFP) versus Furlow palatoplasty with buccal myomucosal flap (FPBF) on maxillary arch dimensions in children at the primary dentition stage with cleft palate, in comparison to matching subjects without any craniofacial anomalies.

MATERIAL AND METHODS

This study included 28 subjects with an age range of 5-6 years; 10 non-cleft subjects were included in the control group, 9 patients treated with TFP, and 9 patients treated with FPBF. For the included patients, the maxillary models were scanned using a desktop scanner to produce virtual models, and the maxillary dimension measurements were virtually completed. The produced measurements were compared between the 3 groups. Maxillary models of the 28 participants were evaluated.

RESULTS

Statistically insignificant differences were detected between the 3 groups for arch symmetry measurements. Differences were detected in the inter-canine width between the 2 surgical groups and non-cleft group. Both arch length and posterior palatal depth significantly differ while comparing the TFP to the control group, with no differences between FPBF and the non-cleft group.

CONCLUSION

Furlow palatoplasty with buccal myomucosal flap might be considered a better surgical option than two flap palatoplasty for patients with cleft palate while evaluating maxillary arch dimensions at the primary dentition stage as a surgical outcome.

CLINICAL RELEVANCE

This study gives insight into the surgical technique that has limited effect on the maxillary growth and dental arch dimension. Therefore, it decreases the need for orthodontic treatment and orthognathic surgery.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

clinicaltrials.gov ( NCT05405738 ).