Comparison of Facial Morphology in Two Populations with Unilateral Cleft Lip and Palate from Two Different Centers

2005 ◽  
Author(s):  
John Daskalogiannakis ◽  
Gabrielle Dijkman ◽  
Anne Kuijpers-Jagtman ◽  
Bruce Ross
Keyword(s):  
Cleft Lip ◽  
Cleft Lip And Palate ◽  
Facial Morphology ◽  
Two Populations

Comparison of Facial Morphology in Two Populations with Complete Unilateral Cleft Lip and Palate from Two Different Centers

2006 ◽  
Vol 43 (4) ◽  
pp. 471-476 ◽  
Author(s):  
John Daskalogiannakis ◽  
Gabriëlle E. H. M. Dijkman ◽  
Anne Marie Kuijpers-Jagtman ◽  
R. Bruce Ross
Keyword(s):  
Repeated Measures ◽  
Cleft Lip ◽  
Cleft Lip And Palate ◽  
Alveolar Bone ◽  
Craniofacial Morphology ◽  
Facial Morphology ◽  
History Of ◽  
Sick Children ◽  
Genetically Determined ◽  
Two Populations

Objective To identify differences in craniofacial morphology of two populations with a history of complete unilateral cleft lip and palate (UCLP) treated under different protocols. Design Retrospective longitudinal cohort study. Setting Cleft Center of the University of Nijmegen, The Netherlands, and the Cleft Lip and Palate Program, The Hospital for Sick Children, Toronto, Canada. Subjects Nineteen patients (16 male, 3 female) from Nijmegen and 19 patients (16 male, 3 female) from Toronto. Each patient was matched for sex and age with a patient from the other group. The mean ages at which lateral cephalometric radiographs were available for the Nijmegen group were 5.5, 9.9, and 18.3 years, while for the Toronto group these were available at mean ages of 5.3, 10.1, and 18.3 years, respectively. Eighteen patients from the Nijmegen group received an alveolar bone graft at a mean age of 9.5 years (range 8.2 to 13.5 years). None of the patients from Toronto received bone grafts. Main Outcome Measures Eighteen cephalometric variables per radiograph were calculated at each time registration, using Dentofacial Planner cephalometric software. Statistical evaluation was performed with repeated-measures analysis of variance. Results No differences were seen in the maxillary measurements. The patients in the Toronto group had significantly larger mandibles at all three time registrations. Conclusions The Nijmegen and Toronto protocols resulted in similar maxillary projections in patients with UCLP. Comparison of data from other studies supports the contention that the larger profile convexity of the Nijmegen group is a reflection of a genetically determined smaller mandibular size in the Dutch population.

Comparison of Facial Morphology in Two Populations With Complete Unilateral Cleft Lip and Palate From Two Different Centers

2006 ◽  
Vol 43 (4) ◽  
pp. 471 ◽  
Author(s):  
John Daskalogiannakis ◽  
Gabriëlle E.H.M. Dijkman ◽  
Anne Marie Kuijpers-Jagtman ◽  
R. Bruce Ross
Keyword(s):  
Cleft Lip ◽  
Cleft Lip And Palate ◽  
Facial Morphology ◽  
Two Populations

Hard Palate Repair Timing and Facial Growth in Unilateral Cleft Lip and Palate: A Longitudinal Study

2006 ◽  
Vol 43 (5) ◽  
pp. 547-556 ◽  
Author(s):  
Yu-Fang Liao ◽  
Timothy J. Cole ◽  
Michael Mars
Keyword(s):  
Longitudinal Study ◽  
Hard Palate ◽  
Cleft Lip ◽  
Cleft Lip And Palate ◽  
Sri Lankan ◽  
Facial Morphology ◽  
Facial Growth ◽  
Clinical Notes ◽  
Timing Effect ◽  
Palate Repair

Objective: To investigate whether timing of hard palate repair had a significant effect on facial growth in patients with unilateral cleft lip and palate (UCLP). Design: Retrospective longitudinal study. Setting: Sri Lankan Cleft Lip and Palate Project. Patients: A total of 104 patients with nonsyndromic UCLP who had hard palate repair by age 13 years, with their 290 cephalometric radiographs taken after lip and palate repair. Main Outcome Measures: Clinical notes were used to record surgical treatment histories. Cephalometry was used to determine facial morphology and growth rate. Results: Timing of hard palate repair had a significant effect on the length and protrusion of the alveolar maxilla (PMP-A and SNA, respectively) and the anteroposterior alveolar jaw relation (ANB) at age 20 years but not on their growth rates. Conclusion: Timing of hard palate repair significantly affects the growth of the maxilla in patients with UCLP. Late hard palate repair has a smaller adverse effect than does early hard palate repair on the growth of the maxilla. This timing effect primarily affects the anteroposterior development of the maxillary dentoalveolus and is attributed to the development being undisturbed before closure of the hard palate.

A two-centre study on facial morphology in patients with complete bilateral cleft lip and palate at nine years of age

2011 ◽  
Vol 40 (8) ◽  
pp. 782-789 ◽  
Author(s):  
T.N. Bartzela ◽  
C. Katsaros ◽  
E.M. Bronkhorst ◽  
S. Rizell ◽  
D. Halazonetis ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Cleft Lip ◽  
Cleft Lip And Palate ◽  
Facial Morphology ◽  
Centre Study ◽  
Bilateral Cleft Lip

P-A Cephalometric Analysis of Nonoperated Adult Cleft Lip and Palate

1994 ◽  
Vol 31 (3) ◽  
pp. 193-200 ◽  
Author(s):  
Nobuyoshi Motohashi ◽  
Takayuki Kuroda ◽  
Leopoldino Capelozza Filho ◽  
José Alberto De Souza Freitas
Keyword(s):  
Cleft Lip ◽  
Cleft Lip And Palate ◽  
Craniofacial Morphology ◽  
Cephalometric Analysis ◽  
Facial Morphology ◽  
Facial Deformity ◽  
Control Subjects ◽  
Significant Difference ◽  
Bilateral Cleft Lip ◽  
The Comparative Study

P-A cephalometric analysis was performed on the craniofacial morphology in 88 Brazilian men with nonoperated and operated cleft lip and palate. For the comparative study, these subjects were divided into the following four groups: (1) 31 nonoperated unilateral cleft lip and palate (UCLP), (2) 24 nonoperated bilateral cleft lip and palate (BCLP), (3) 16 operated UCLP, (4) 17 operated BCLP. Thirty Brazilian men without cleft lip and palate were used as control subjects. In comparison with the control subjects, nonoperated BCLP and UCLP showed remarkable facial deformity characterized by Increased width of various facial parts. Facial morphology of surgically treated BCLP and UCLP, however, was very similar to that of noncleft subjects, apart from the Immediate cleft region. There was no remarkable difference in the facial morphology between nonoperated BCLP and UCLP, except for the cleft width and the deviation of nasal septum base, while the only significant difference between operated BCLP and UCLP was in the cleft width.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document