Long-Term Evidence for Favorable Midfacial Growth after Delayed Hard Palate Repair in UCLP Patients

2001 ◽  
Vol 38 (4) ◽  
pp. 323-329 ◽  
Author(s):  
Hans Friede ◽  
Hans Enemark
Keyword(s):  
Soft Palate ◽  
Hard Palate ◽  
Cleft Lip ◽  
Cleft Lip And Palate ◽  
Good Alternative ◽  
Speech Development ◽  
Mixed Dentition ◽  
Surgical Methods ◽  
Palate Repair

Objective: To investigate whether delayed hard palate repair resulted in better midfacial growth in the long term than previously achieved with “conventional” surgical methods of palatal closure. Design and Setting: Long-term cephalometric data from patients with unilateral cleft lip and palate were available from two Scandinavian cleft centers. The patients had been treated by different regimens, particularly regarding the method and timing of palatal surgery. Patients were analyzed retrospectively, and one investigator digitized all radiographs. Patients: Thirty consecutively treated subjects from each center, with cephalograms taken at three comparable stages between 10 and 16 years of age. Results and Conclusions: Patients whose hard palates were repaired late (early soft palate closure followed by delayed hard palate repair at the stage of mixed dentition) had significantly better midfacial development than patients in whom the hard palate was operated on early with a vomer flap, and then during the second year of life, the soft palate was repaired with a push-back procedure. As the growth advantage in the delayed hard palate repair group was accomplished without impeding long-term speech development, the delayed repair regimen proved to be a good alternative in surgical treatment of patients with unilateral cleft lip and palate.

Influence of Infant Cleft Dimensions on Velopharyngeal Function in 5-Year-Old Danish Children Born With Unilateral Cleft Lip and Palate

2019 ◽  
Vol 57 (4) ◽  
pp. 420-429
Author(s):  
Susanna Botticelli ◽  
Annelise Küseler ◽  
Kirsten Mølsted ◽  
Helene Soegaard Andersen ◽  
Maria Boers ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Soft Palate ◽  
Hard Palate ◽  
Cleft Lip ◽  
Cleft Lip And Palate ◽  
Controlled Trial ◽  
Velopharyngeal Insufficiency ◽  
Primary Surgery ◽  
Multicenter Randomized Controlled Trial ◽  
Palate Repair ◽  
Velopharyngeal Function

Aim: To examine the association of cleft severity at infancy and velopharyngeal competence in preschool children with unilateral cleft lip and palate operated with early or delayed hard palate repair. Design: Subgroup analysis within a multicenter randomized controlled trial of primary surgery (Scandcleft). Setting: Tertiary health care. One surgical center. Patients and Methods: One hundred twenty-five infants received cheilo-rhinoplasty and soft palate repair at age 3 to 4 months and were randomized to hard palate closure at age 12 or 36 months. Cleft size and cleft morphology were measured 3 dimensionally on digital models, obtained by laser surface scanning of preoperative plaster models (mean age: 1.8 months). Main outcome measurements: Velopharyngeal competence (VPC) and hypernasality assessed from a naming test (VPC-Sum) and connected speech (VPC-Rate). In both scales, higher scores indicated a more severe velopharyngeal insufficiency. Results: No difference between surgical groups was shown. A low positive correlation was found between posterior cleft width and VPC-Rate (Spearman = .23; P = .025). The role of the covariate “cleft size at tuberosity level” was confirmed in an ordinal logistic regression model (odds ratio [OR] = 1.17; 95% confidence interval [CI]:1.01-1.35). A low negative correlation was shown between anteroposterior palatal length and VPC-Sum (Spearman = −.27; P = .004) and confirmed by the pooled scores VPC-Pooled (OR = 0.82; 95% CI: 0.69-0.98) and VPC-Dichotomic (OR = 0.82; 95% CI: 0.68-0.99). Conclusions: Posterior cleft dimensions can be a modest indicator for the prognosis of velopharyngeal function at age 5 years, when the soft palate is closed first, independently on the timing of hard palate repair. Antero-posterior palatal length seems to protect from velopharyngeal insufficiency and hypernasality. However, the association found was significant but low.

Results of Randomized Controlled Trial of Soft Palate First versus Hard Palate First Repair in Unilateral Complete Cleft Lip and Palate

2006 ◽  
Vol 43 (3) ◽  
pp. 329-338 ◽  
Author(s):  
Bruce Richard ◽  
Joyce Russell ◽  
Siobhan McMahon ◽  
Ron Pigott
Keyword(s):  
Soft Palate ◽  
Hard Palate ◽  
Cleft Lip ◽  
Cleft Lip And Palate ◽  
Primary Repair ◽  
Controlled Trial ◽  
Facial Growth ◽  
Cleft Closure ◽  
Palate Repair ◽  
Intercanine Distance

Objective To compare the outcomes for primary repair of unilateral cleft lip and palate, operating on the soft palate first versus the hard palate first. Design Randomized controlled trial. Setting The Regional Cleft Service of West Nepal. Patients Forty-seven consecutive patients with nonsyndromic unilateral cleft lip and palate, of whom 37 were assessed 4 to 6 years after completing primary surgical repair. Interventions Primary repair of unilateral cleft lip and palate by two differing sequences: (1) soft palate repair, with hard palate and lip repair 3 months later; and (2) lip and hard palate repair, followed by the soft palate repair 3 months later. Main Outcome Measures Analysis of dental study models, weight gain, and speech recordings. Results Four to 7 years after completing the cleft closure, there was no significant difference in facial growth between the two types of repair sequencing. Completing posterior repair first had no effect on anterior alveolar gap width. It narrowed the hard palate gap by reducing the intercanine distance. Anterior repair dramatically closed the anterior alveolar gap, and narrowed the intercanine distance. Comparing anterior alveolar gap width with age at first presentation demonstrated that there was no spontaneous narrowing of the cleft in older children. Completing posterior closure first had a weight gain advantage over anterior closure first. Improved oropharyngeal closure, and thus swallowing, is the likely explanation. Conclusion Changing the sequencing of cleft closure has no demonstrable difference in facial growth at 4 to 7 years after completion of the primary surgery.

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.

scholarly journals Palatal morphology in unilateral cleft lip and palate patients: Association with infant cleft dimensions and timing of hard palate repair

2019 ◽  
Vol 22 (4) ◽  
pp. 270-280 ◽  
Author(s):  
Susanna Botticelli ◽  
Annelise Küseler ◽  
Kirsten Mølsted ◽  
Maja Ovsenik ◽  
Sven Erik Nørholt ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Hard Palate ◽  
Cleft Lip ◽  
Cleft Lip And Palate ◽  
Palate Repair

A Comparison of Three Methods of Repairing the Hard Palate

2002 ◽  
Vol 39 (4) ◽  
pp. 383-391 ◽  
Author(s):  
R. W. Pigott ◽  
E. H. Albery ◽  
I. S. Hathorn ◽  
N. E. Atack ◽  
A. Williams ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Hard Palate ◽  
Cleft Lip ◽  
Cleft Lip And Palate ◽  
Small Sample Size ◽  
Statistical Significance ◽  
Small Sample ◽  
Velopharyngeal Insufficiency ◽  
Strong Trend ◽  
Computer Based ◽  
Palate Repair

Objective To compare growth, speech, and nasal symmetry outcomes of three methods of hard palate repair. Patients Consecutive available records of children born with unilateral bony complete cleft lip and palate over the period 1972 to 1992. Interventions Identical management of lip, nose, alveolus, and soft palate. Hard palate repair by Cuthbert Veau (CV) from 1972 to 1981, von Langenbeck (vL) from 1982 to 1989, or medial Langenbeck (ML) from 1989 to 1991. Outcome Measures For growth: GOSLON yardstick or 5-year model index. For speech: articulation test. Nasal anemometry. For nasal symmetry: Coghlan computer-based assessment. All these measures were developed during the period of data collection but not for this project. Results There was a strong trend toward more favorable anteroposterior maxillary growth with the change from CV to vL to ML techniques. This fell short of statistical significance because of the small sample size. There was a significant reduction in cleft-related articulation faults (p = .01) considered to be related to improved arch form. In the absence of improved rates of velopharyngeal insufficiency or nasal symmetry, increased surgical experience was discounted as a significant contribution to improved growth and articulation outcomes. Conclusions Reduced periosteal undermining and residual exposed palatal shelf from CV to vL to ML improved incisor relationships and articulation.

Timing of Hard Palate Closure and Dental Arch Relationships in Unilateral Cleft Lip and Palate Patients: A Mixed-Longitudinal Study

1993 ◽  
Vol 30 (4) ◽  
pp. 391-396 ◽  
Author(s):  
Alexis E.M. Noverraz ◽  
Anne Marie Kuijpers-Jagtman ◽  
Michael Mars ◽  
Martin A. Van't Hof
Keyword(s):  
Longitudinal Study ◽  
Hard Palate ◽  
Cleft Lip ◽  
Cleft Lip And Palate ◽  
Mixed Dentition ◽  
Dental Development ◽  
Dental Arch ◽  
Group A ◽  
Group B ◽  
Group D

In a mixed longitudinal study, dental arch relationships of 88 consecutive UCLP patients treated at the Nijmegen Cleft Palate Centre were evaluated using the Goslon Yardstick. On the basis of timing of hard palate closure, the patients were divided into four groups. Mean age of hard palate closure in group A (n = 18) was 1.5 years, in group B (n = 26) 4.6 years and in group C (n = 18) 9.4 years. In group D (n = 26, no patient older than 10 years) the hard palate was still open. Four stages of dental development were distinguished; deciduous dentition, early mixed dentition, late mixed dentition and permanent dentition. Reproducibility of scoring with the Goslon Yardstick was good for all stages of dental development. No differences in dental arch relationships were found between the four groups. In 86% of the cases, the dental arch relationships of UCLP patients treated in Nijmegen were acceptable. Pharyngeal flap surgery had minor unfavorable effects on dental arch relationships.

Hard Palate Repair Timing and Facial Growth in Cleft Lip and Palate: A Systematic Review

2006 ◽  
Vol 43 (5) ◽  
pp. 563-570 ◽  
Author(s):  
Yu-Fang Liao ◽  
Michael Mars
Keyword(s):  
Systematic Review ◽  
Hard Palate ◽  
Cleft Lip ◽  
Cleft Lip And Palate ◽  
Case Reports ◽  
Case Series ◽  
Long Term Results ◽  
Facial Growth ◽  
Cleft Lip Palate ◽  
Palate Repair

Objective: To evaluate the effect of timing of hard palate repair on facial growth in patients with cleft lip and palate, with special reference to cranial base, maxilla, mandible, jaw relation, and incisor relation. Design: A systematic review. Methods: The search strategy was based on the key words “facial growth,” “cleft lip palate,” and “timing of (hard) palate repair.” Case reports, case-series, and studies with no control or comparison group in the sample were excluded. Results: Fifteen studies met the selection criteria. All the studies were retrospective and nonrandomized. Five studies used cephalometry and casts, seven used cephalometry, and three used casts. Methodological deficiencies and heterogeneity of the studies prevented major conclusions. Conclusion: The review highlights the importance of further research. Prospective well-designed, controlled studies, especially targeting long-term results, are required to elucidate the effect of timing of hard palate repair on facial growth in patients with cleft lip and palate.

Two-Stage Palate Repair with Delayed Hard Palate Closure Is Related to Favorable Maxillary Growth in Unilateral Cleft Lip and Palate

2010 ◽  
Vol 125 (5) ◽  
pp. 1503-1510 ◽  
Author(s):  
Yu-Fang Liao ◽  
I-Ying Yang ◽  
Ruby Wang ◽  
Claudia Yun ◽  
Chiung-Shing Huang
Keyword(s):  
Hard Palate ◽  
Cleft Lip ◽  
Cleft Lip And Palate ◽  
Two Stage ◽  
Palate Repair ◽  
Maxillary Growth

Facial and Nasolabial Aesthetics of Complete UCLP Submitted to 2-Stage Palate Repair With Vomer Flap

2018 ◽  
Vol 55 (9) ◽  
pp. 1211-1217
Author(s):  
Terumi Okada Ozawa ◽  
Luciana Lais Savero Reis ◽  
Renata Mayumi Kato ◽  
Diógenes Laercio Rocha ◽  
Renata Sathler ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Cleft Lip ◽  
Outcome Measure ◽  
Cleft Lip And Palate ◽  
Mixed Dentition ◽  
Single Center ◽  
Facial Profile ◽  
Main Outcome Measure ◽  
Kappa Test ◽  
Palate Repair ◽  
Vomer Flap

Objective: To evaluate the aesthetics of nasolabial appearance and facial profile of children with unilateral cleft lip and palate (UCLP) submitted to 2-stage palate repair with vomerine flap. Design: Retrospective. Setting: Single center. Patients: Forty patients with UCLP, mean age of 7.81 years of both sexes, rehabilitated at a single center by 1 plastic surgeon. Interventions: Lip and anterior palate repair with nasal alar repositioning was performed at 3 to 6 months of age by Millard technique and vomer flap, respectively. Posterior palate was repaired at 18 months by Von Langenbeck technique. Main Outcome Measure(s): Four cropped digital facial photographs of each patient were evaluated by 3 orthodontists to score the nasolabial aesthetics and profile. Frequencies of each score as well means and medians were calculated. Kappa test was used for evaluating inter- and intrarater reproducibility. Results: The nasal form and deviation was scored as good/very good in 70%, fair in 22.5%, and poor in 7.5% of the sample. The nasal–subnasal aesthetic was considered good/very good in 55%, fair in 30%, and poor in 15% of the sample. The lip vermilion border and the white part of surgical scar aesthetics were good/very good in 77.5% and 80%, fair in 17.5% for both categories, and poor in 5% and 2.5% of the cases, respectively. In all, 67.5% showed convex facial profile, 20% was straight, and 12.5% was concave profile. Conclusions: Two-stage palatoplasty presented an adequate aesthetical results for the majority of patients with UCLP in the mixed dentition.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document