Long-term Follow-up after Maxillary Distraction Osteogenesis in Growing Children with Cleft Lip and Palate

2007 ◽  
Vol 44 (3) ◽  
pp. 274-277 ◽  
Author(s):  
Chiung-Shing Huang ◽  
Pandurangan Harikrishnan ◽  
Yu-Fang Liao ◽  
Ellen W. C. Ko ◽  
Eric J. W. Liou ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Distraction Osteogenesis ◽  
Cleft Lip ◽  
Cleft Lip And Palate ◽  
University Hospital ◽  
Anterior Nasal Spine ◽  
Distraction Device ◽  
Long Term Follow Up ◽  
The University ◽  
Maxillary Distraction

Objective: To evaluate the changes in maxillary position after maxillary distraction osteogenesis in six growing children with cleft lip and palate. Design: Retrospective, longitudinal study on maxillary changes at A point, anterior nasal spine, posterior nasal spine, central incisor, and first molar. Setting: The University Hospital Craniofacial Center. Main Outcome Measure: Cephalometric radiographs were used to measure the maxillary position immediately after distraction, at 6 months, and more than 1 year after distraction. Results: After maxillary distraction with a rigid external distraction device, the maxilla (A point) on average moved forward 9.7 mm and downward 3.5 mm immediately after distraction, moved backward 0.9 mm and upward 2.0 mm after 6 months postoperatively, and then moved further backward 2.3 mm and downward 6.8 mm after more than 1 year from the predistraction position. Conclusion: In most cases, maxilla moved forward at distraction and started to move backward until 1 year after distraction, but remained forward, as compared with predistraction position. Maxilla also moved downward during distraction and upward in 6 months, but started descending in 1 year. There also was no further forward growth of the maxilla after distraction in growing children with clefts.

scholarly journals Long-term Skeletal Stability of Computer-Assisted Maxillary Distraction Osteogenesis for Patients with Cleft Lip and Palate-Related Midfacial Hypoplasia

2017 ◽  
Vol 26 (1) ◽  
pp. 87-94 ◽  
Author(s):  
Takahiro Kanno ◽  
Shintaro Sukegawa ◽  
Akane Shibata ◽  
Yoshihiko Furuki ◽  
Hitoshi Mori ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Distraction Osteogenesis ◽  
Cleft Lip ◽  
Cleft Lip And Palate ◽  
Computer Assisted ◽  
Midfacial Hypoplasia ◽  
Skeletal Stability ◽  
Maxillary Distraction

One-Year Treatment Outcome of Profile Changes After Transcutaneous Maxillary Distraction Osteogenesis in Growing Children With Cleft Lip and Palate

2021 ◽  
pp. 105566562110056
Author(s):  
Wei-Ling Gao ◽  
Yi-Hao Lee ◽  
Chi-Yu Tsai ◽  
Te-Ju Wu ◽  
Jui-Pin Lai ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Treatment Outcome ◽  
Distraction Osteogenesis ◽  
Cleft Lip ◽  
Cleft Lip And Palate ◽  
Long Term Stability ◽  
Maxillary Advancement ◽  
Anterior Nasal Spine ◽  
Profile Changes ◽  
One Year

Objective: To evaluate the long-term stability of LeFort I osteotomy followed by distraction osteogenesis with a transcutaneous rigid external device for the treatment of severe maxillary hypoplasia in patients with cleft lip and palate. Patients and Methods: Nine patients with cleft lip and palate underwent rigid external distraction after a LeFort I osteotomy for maxillary advancement. Lateral cephalometric films were analyzed for assessment of treatment outcome and stability in 1 month, 6 months, and 1 year after distraction. Results: Significant maxillary advancement was observed in the horizontal direction, with the anterior nasal spine (ANS) distance of the maxilla increasing by an average of 20.5 ± 5.1 mm after distraction. The ANS relapse rates in 6 months and 1 year were 8.7% and 12.8%, respectively. The mean inclination of upper incisors to the palatal plane was almost unchanged (before: 109.8° ± 6.6°; after: 108.9° ± 7.5°). The movement ratios at the nasal tip/ANS, soft tissue A point/A point, and the upper vermilion border/upper incisor edge were 0.36:1, 0.72:1, and 0.83:1, respectively. Conclusion: Considerable maxillary advancement was achieved with less change of incisors inclination after distraction. Moreover, the relapse rate after 1 year was minimal. The concave facial profile was improved as well as the facial balance and aesthetics.

Speech in Adults Treated for Unilateral Cleft Lip and Palate: Long-Term Follow-Up after One- or Two-Stage Palate Repair

2017 ◽  
Vol 54 (6) ◽  
pp. 639-649 ◽  
Author(s):  
Staffan Morén ◽  
Maria Mani ◽  
Stålhammar Lilian ◽  
Per Åke Lindestad ◽  
Mats Holmström
Keyword(s):  
Cleft Lip ◽  
Cleft Lip And Palate ◽  
University Hospital ◽  
Velopharyngeal Insufficiency ◽  
Control Group ◽  
Two Stage ◽  
One Stage ◽  
Long Term Follow Up

Objective To evaluate speech in adults treated for unilateral cleft lip and palate with one-stage or two-stage palate closure and compare the speech of the patients with that of a noncleft control group. Design Cross-sectional study with long-term follow-up. Participants/Setting All unilateral cleft lip and palate patients born from 1960 to 1987 and treated at Uppsala University Hospital, Sweden, were invited (n = 109). Participation rate was 67% (n = 73) at a mean of 35 years after primary surgery. Forty-seven had been treated according to one-stage palate closure and 26 according to two-stage palate closure. Pharyngeal flap surgery had been performed in 11 of the 73 patients (15%). The noncleft control group consisted of 63 age-matched volunteers. Main Outcome Measure(s) Speech-language pathologists rated perceptual speech characteristics from blinded audio recordings. Results Among patients, seven (10%) presented with hypernasality, 12 (16%) had audible nasal emission and/or nasal turbulence, five (7%) had consonant production errors, one (2%) had glottal reinforcements/substitutions, and one (2%) had reduced intelligibility. Controls had no audible signs of velopharyngeal insufficiency and no quantifiable problems with the other speech production variables. No significant differences were identified between patients treated with one-stage and two-stage palate closure for any of the variables. Conclusions The prevalence of speech outcome indicative of velopharyngeal insufficiency among adult patients treated for unilateral cleft lip and palate was low but higher compared with individuals without cleft. Whether palatal closure is performed in one or two stages does not seem to affect the speech outcome at a mean age of 35 years.

Long-term follow-up of large maxillary advancements with distraction osteogenesis in growing and non-growing cleft lip and palate patients

2015 ◽  
Vol 68 (1) ◽  
pp. 79-86 ◽  
Author(s):  
Maria Costanza Meazzini ◽  
Valentina Basile ◽  
Fabio Mazzoleni ◽  
Alberto Bozzetti ◽  
Roberto Brusati
Keyword(s):  
Distraction Osteogenesis ◽  
Cleft Lip ◽  
Cleft Lip And Palate ◽  
Long Term Follow Up
Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document