Current Treatment of Cleft Patients in Europe from a Provider Perspective: A Cross-Sectional Survey

Abstract

The latest Eurocleft study reported several discrepancies in cleft care. Since then, no critical assessment has been performed. This study aimed to better understand the main strengths and inefficiencies of cleft care within Europe. The Google documents platform was used to create an online survey to investigate several aspects, i.e., provider characteristics, patient profile, services offered, and treatment protocols and complications. Descriptive statistics were calculated. The association between categorical variables was performed using Fisher’s exact test. The significance level chosen was 0.05. A total of 69 individuals from 23 European countries completed the survey. Centralized care was the preferred system, and the majority of the countries have an association for cleft patients and professionals (53.6%). The largest percentage of patients was seen in the university hospital environment (Fisher’s exact test p < 0.001). The majority of responders (98.6%) reported that an orthodontist was involved in cleft treatment, and 56.5% of them spend 76–100% of their time treating these patients. Despite cleft care having been reconfigured in Europe, a better consensus among the various centers regarding provider characteristics, services offered, and treatment protocols is still required. There is a need for better coordination between clinicians and national/international regulatory bodies.

Rapid Maxillary Expansion Treatment in Patients with Cleft Lip and Palate: A Survey on Clinical Experience in the European Cleft Centers

“…However, low response rates increase the probability of response bias [71,72]. Our response rate of 40.5% is comparable to similar surveys in this field [30,34]. More studies are required globally to provide adequate evidence for treating these patients [73].…”

“…Almost all clinicians keep records of the CLP patients treated with RME, such as dental models and photographs. Computed tomography was used by 23%, similar to the results reported in recent literature [34,63]. Considering that CLP is a 3D facial deformity, using cone beam computed tomography helps achieve better care for those patients [67].…”

“…There is no consensus on the treatment protocols for patients with CLP among the European centers [34]. Moreover, the lack of data on the RME protocol in relation to the SABG and the associated complications [28] led us to this survey.…”