Does Early Secondary Alveolar Bone Grafting Influence Need for Additional Maxillary Advancement Procedures in Cleft Lip and Palate?

Objective To determine if secondary alveolar bone grafting (SABG) timing in patients with cleft lip and palate (CLP) influences the future need for additional maxillary advancement procedures, particularly Le Fort I osteotomy with rigid external distraction (RED). Design Retrospective cohort study. Groups were separated by SABG timing: early mixed dentition (ages 68 years) or late mixed dentition (ages 9-11 years). The criterion for RED was negative overjet ≥8 mm, and sufficient dental development for RED. Setting Single tertiary care institution. Patients Patients with CLP that underwent SABG from 2010 to 2015. Exclusion criteria included syndromic conditions, SABG surgery at age >12 years, current age <12 years, and <2 years follow-up. 104 patients were included. Main outcome measures The number of RED candidates and treated patients. Results There was no statistical difference in the number of RED candidates ( P = .0718) nor treated patients ( P = .2716) based on SABG timing; stratification by laterality was also insignificant. Early SABG is associated with higher odds of being a RED candidate (pooled, unilateral, bilateral) and treated patient (pooled and unilateral); however, there were no statistically significant associations between SABG timing and the number of RED candidates and treated patients as determined by logistic regression models. Conclusion There is no statistically significant association between SABG timing and the odds of being a RED candidate or treated patient. Future prospective studies are recommended to assess the relationship between SABG timing and maxillary growth in patients with CLP.

Effects of different surgical techniques and displacement distances on the soft tissue profile via orthodontic-orthognathic treatment of class II and class III malocclusions

Background Orthognathic surgery can be carried out using isolated mandibular or maxillary movement and bimaxillary procedures. In cases of moderate skeletal malocclusion, camouflage treatment by premolar extraction is another treatment option. All these surgical procedures can have a different impact on the soft tissue profile. Methods The changes in the soft tissue profile of 187 patients (Class II: 53, Class III: 134) were investigated. The treatment approaches were differentiated as follows: Class II: mandible advancement (MnA), bimaxillary surgery (MxS/MnA), upper extraction (UpEX), or Class III: maxillary advancement (MxA), mandible setback (MnS), bimaxillary surgery (MxA/MnS), and lower extraction (LowEX) as well as the extent of skeletal deviation (moderate Wits appraisal: − 7 mm to 7 mm, pronounced: Wits <− 7 mm, > 7 mm, respectively). This resulted in five groups for Class II treatment and seven groups for Class III treatment. Results In the Class II patients, a statistically significant difference (p ≤ 0.05) between UpEX and moderate MnA was found for facial profile (N′-Prn-Pog’), soft tissue profile (N′-Sn-Pog’), and mentolabial angle (Pog’-B′-Li). In the Class III patients, a statistically significant differences (p ≤ 0.05) occurred between LowEX and moderate MxA for facial profile (N′-Prn-Pog’), soft tissue profile (N′-Sn-Pog’), upper and lower lip distacne to esthetic line (Ls/Li-E-line), and lower lip length (Sto-Gn’). Only isolated significant differences (p < 0.05) were recognized between the moderate surgical Class II and III treatments as well between the pronounced Class III surgeries. No statistical differences were noticed between moderate and pronounced orthognathic surgery. Conclusions When surgery is required, the influence of orthognathic surgical techniques on the profile seems to be less significant. However, it must be carefully considered if orthognathic or camouflage treatment should be done in moderate malocclusions as a moderate mandibular advancement in Class II therapy will straighten the soft tissue profile much more by increasing the facial and soft tissue profile angle and reducing the mentolabial angle than camouflage treatment. In contrast, moderate maxillary advancement in Class III therapy led to a significantly more convex facial and soft tissue profile by decreasing distances of the lips to the E-Line as well as the lower lip length.

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

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.