3-D shape analysis of palatal surface in patients with unilateral complete cleft lip and palate

Rusková, Hana; Bejdová, Šárka; Peterka, Miroslav; Krajíček, Václav; Velemínská, Jana

doi:10.1016/j.jcms.2013.07.011

Cited by 24 publications

(23 citation statements)

References 36 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…2 were located at the palatal tip, in the premaxillary region. This finding was in line with previous results from the literature, which reported an inferior displacement of the premaxilla in cleft patients [12,13]; based on these previously published results, we support the fact that functional protocol No. 2 allows obtaining a palatal shape closer to normal than protocol No.…”

Section: Protocolsupporting

confidence: 93%

“…Various morphometric methods have been used to assess cleft anatomy [7][8][9][10][11][12][13] and the outcomes of cleft repair [14,15], based on 2D radiographic data [7,8], 3D radiographic data [9,10] and digitized dental casts [11,15]. Our study is nevertheless the first, to our knowledge, to use 3D CBCT data in order to compare the outcomes of two different management protocols based on geometric morphometrics.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Maxillary shape after primary cleft closure and before alveolar bone graft in two different management protocols: A comparative morphometric study

Girinon

Ketoff

Hennocq

et al. 2019

Journal of Stomatology, Oral and Maxillofacial Surgery

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Section: Protocolsupporting

confidence: 93%

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Maxillary shape after primary cleft closure and before alveolar bone graft in two different management protocols: A comparative morphometric study

Girinon

Ketoff

Hennocq

et al. 2019

Journal of Stomatology, Oral and Maxillofacial Surgery

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

“…However, for UCLP patients, the palatal roof will tend to be higher than the roof of reference non‐cleft palates in the anterior region, corresponding to the scar. These findings are in accordance with the results shown by Smahel and Ruskova . Compared with their studies, our study benefits from a homogeneous material collected within the context of an RCT of primary surgery.…”

Section: Discussionsupporting

confidence: 92%

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

Botticelli

Küseler

Mølsted

et al. 2019

Orthod Craniofacial Res

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Objectives To assess the impact of cleft severity and timing of hard palate repair on palatal dimensions in unilateral cleft lip and palate (UCLP) children. Setting and sample population Single‐centre analysis within a multicenter RCT of primary surgery; 122 UCLP randomized to early hard palate closure (EHPC) at 12 months or delayed hard palate closure (DHPC) at 36 months; 28 frequency‐matched controls. Methods Linear measurements of palatal height, width and length were performed on 116 digital models of UCLP subjects (8.21 years, SD = 0.53) and 28 models of non‐cleft individuals (8.44 years SD = 0.72). Cleft dimensions at infancy (mean 1.8 months) were considered. In a pilot study, shell‐to‐shell distances between the 3D cleft palate objects and a reference mesh were calculated and differences between the groups assessed. Morphological differences were visualized using colour mapping. Results Compared to controls, UCLP subjects presented a higher palate at the level of the anterior scar (P = 0.002), but generally a lower palate in the middle region (P < 0.001). Comparing UCLP subgroups, the DHPC subjects showed a flatter palate posteriorly (P = 0.048) and the EHPC group exhibited more transversal constriction (P = 0.003 at M1 level). 3D analysis revealed a shallower palate in the DHPC group both in the middle (P = 0.002) and the posterior part (P = 0.008). Anterior cleft severity correlated negatively with palatal height (P = 0.01). Conclusions Unilateral cleft lip and palate palates differ from controls in width and height. DHPC may represent an advantage for the transversal dimension, but a disadvantage for palatal height. Infant cleft dimensions partially explain differences in palatal height.

show abstract

“…Until now, several studies have been conducted in relation to symmetry in skeletal, dental and soft tissues in individuals with cleft lip and palate. While vermilion symmetry, lip symmetry, nose symmetry, nostril symmetry and facial symmetry were evaluated among soft tissues, evaluation of hard tissues focused on palatal symmetry, condylar symmetry and mandibular symmetry . In CLP patients, an asymmetry in the macro‐aesthetic elements of the face is the most significant factor that may affect the facial aesthetics.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Dental crown symmetry in unilateral cleft lip and palate patients: A three‐dimensional analysis on digital dental models

Di̇ndaroğlu

Duran

Doğan

2019

Orthod Craniofacial Res

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Objectives The purpose of this study was to conduct a 3‐dimensional assessment of possible dental crown asymmetry in dental crown shape and/or size that was not clinically visible in unilateral cleft lip and palate (UCLP) patients on the maxilla and mandible and make a comparison to the control group without CLP. Setting and Sample Population The maxillary and mandibular digital models of orthodontically treated 35 individuals with non‐syndromic UCLP (mean age: 14.6 ± 2.1 years) and 35 class I individuals without CLP (mean age 14.1 ± 1.5 years). Materials and Methods The crowns of the anterior and posterior teeth were segmented and the teeth on the cleft side were mirrored in UCLP patients considering the arbitrary midsagittal plane as reference. The first alignment was landmark‐based and it was followed by the best‐fit method. After aligning the images, millimetric differences (deviation analysis) between aligned surfaces were analysed. Independent Samples t test and Mann‐Whitney U test were used for statistical comparisons. Results The highest difference between the cleft side and non‐cleft side in the UCLP group was observed in the central incisors (1.85 ± 0.79 mm). The mean difference between the groups in the central incisors was 1.20 mm (95% CI: −1.70; −0.69; P < 0.001). The mean of median values was found to be highest in the central incisors in the UCLP group as 0.72 ± 0.27 mm. It was 0.15 ± 0.05 mm in the control group. Conclusion The difference between the cleft and non‐cleft side may exceed 1 mm in the maxillary central incisors of unilateral CLP patients.

show abstract

3-D shape analysis of palatal surface in patients with unilateral complete cleft lip and palate

Cited by 24 publications

References 36 publications

Maxillary shape after primary cleft closure and before alveolar bone graft in two different management protocols: A comparative morphometric study

Maxillary shape after primary cleft closure and before alveolar bone graft in two different management protocols: A comparative morphometric study

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

Dental crown symmetry in unilateral cleft lip and palate patients: A three‐dimensional analysis on digital dental models

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About