Effects of labial adhesion on maxillary arch dimensions and nasolabial esthetics in cleft lip and palate: a systematic review

Thierens, Laurent A. M.; Brusselaers, Nele; Roo, Noëmi M C De; Pauw, Guy A.M. De

doi:10.1111/odi.12613

Cited by 15 publications

(12 citation statements)

References 42 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…After the reconstruction of muscular system the orbicularis oris muscle operates the molding effect on noncleft segment and enhances the mutual position of the alveolar segments. The same effect was also recorded in Thierens et al (2017), Eichhorn et al (2011) and Christie et al (1991) studies (15,11,12).…”

Section: Discussionsupporting

confidence: 80%

Primary Repair of Cleft Lip and Nose in the Neonatal Period

Valentova¹,

Malina

2018

Acta Medica Martiniana

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Facial cleft malformations belong to the most common problems of the congenital facial anomalies. At the Clinic of Plastic, Aestetic and Reconstructive Surgery at the Faculty Hospital in Banská Bystrica we have been performing primary cleft lip repairs during the first week of life of a newborn since 1995. During this life period the fetal healing still persists. Modern anesthetic techniques have considerably reduced respiratory complications after the lip closure. The adequate postoperative sedation together with monitoring of the pacient remarkably reduces the occurrence of wound dehiscence. The advantages of the neonatal cleft lip repair are the scarless healing, no negative effect on the growth of the middle thirt of the face, as well as the pschychosocial effect on the family and the fact that the ortodontic aparat has not been needed.

show abstract

Section: Discussionsupporting

confidence: 80%

Primary Repair of Cleft Lip and Nose in the Neonatal Period

Valentova¹,

Malina

2018

Acta Medica Martiniana

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…The number of reviewers involved in the SRs ranged from 2 (n = 6) [ 63 , 110 , 114 , 121 , 134 , 137 ] to 15 (n = 1) [ 41 ]. Language restrictions in inclusion criteria were observed in 67 studies [ 23 , 25 , 26 , 27 , 28 , 32 , 34 , 37 , 40 , 47 , 48 , 49 , 57 , 59 , 60 , 61 , 63 , 64 , 65 , 71 , 72 , 73 , 74 , 75 , 76 , 77 , 83 , 85 , 90 , 92 , 94 , 95 , 96 , 99 , 100 , 102 , 105 , 106 , 110 , 111 , 114 , 116 , 118 , 119 , 122 , 125 , 127 , 129 , 130 ,…”

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…The maximum number of SRs and MAs could be categorized in the therapeutic domain (n = 58) [ 73 , 74 , 75 , 76 , 77 , 78 , 79 , 80 , 81 , 82 , 83 , 84 , 85 , 86 , 87 , 88 , 89 , 90 , 91 , 92 , 93 , 94 , 95 , 96 , 97 , 98 , 99 , 100 , 101 , 102 , 103 , 104 , 105 , 106 , 107 , 108 , 109 , 110 , 111 , 112 , 113 , 114 , 115 , 116 , 117 , 118 , 119 , 120 , 121 , 122 , 123 , 124 , 125 , 126 , 127 , 128 , 129 , ...…”

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Evidence Mapping and Quality Analysis of Systematic Reviews on Various Aspects Related to Cleft Lip and Palate

Srivastav,

Tewari,

Antonarakis

et al. 2023

JCM

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Background: Management of cleft lip and palate is interdisciplinary. An evidence-mapping approach was envisaged to highlight the existing gaps in this field, using only the highest level of evidence. Objectives: To conduct evidence mapping and quality analysis of systematic reviews and meta-analyses related to any aspect of cleft lip and palate. Search Methods: The cleft lip and palate field was divided into 9 domains and 50 subdomains and a method of categorization of systematic reviews was established. A comprehensive search strategy was carried out in seven databases along with the search of gray literature and references of included articles. Selection criteria: Systematic reviews related to any aspect of cleft lip and palate, conducted by a minimum of two reviewers, with a comprehensive search strategy and adequate quality analysis were included. Data collection and analysis: A self-designed, pre-piloted data-extraction sheet was used to collect information that was analyzed through an expert group discussion. Quality analysis was performed using ROBIS-I, AMSTAR 2, and the PRISMA checklist. Results: A total of 144 systematic reviews published between 2008 and 2022 were included. The largest number of these could be categorized in the therapeutic domain (n = 58). A total of 27% of the studies were categorized as inconclusive, 40% as partially conclusive, and 33% as conclusive. As per ROBIS-I, 77% of reviews had high risk of bias while 58% were graded as critically low in quality as per AMSTAR 2. The majority of systematic reviews showed low reporting errors. Conclusions: The majority of systematic reviews related to cleft lip and palate relate to therapeutic and prognostic domains and show high risk of bias and critically low quality regardless of the source journal. The results of this paper might serve as a starting point encouraging authors to carry out high-quality research where evidence is lacking. Registration: A multidisciplinary expert-group formulated an a priori protocol, registered in Open Science Framework (DOI 10.17605/OSF.IO/NQDV2).

show abstract

“…18,19 In this study, lip adhesion, nasoalveolus moldings, and gingivoperiosteoplasty, as preliminary processes for cleft repair, which were not performed in our patients with UCLP, could affect the normal development of maxillary features. 20,21 Patients with UCLP who underwent cheiloplasty at 3 to 6 months were incorporated into the evaluation. Above all, cleft palate repair is the main factor causing maxilla underdevelopment that inhibits the maxilla and maxillary arch from developing anteroposteriorly.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Intraoral Scanning Evaluation of Maxillary Arch Changes after Modified Sommerlad Palatoplasty for around Three Years

Li¹,

Tao²,

Yao³

et al. 2023

Plastic &Amp; Reconstructive Surgery

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

left palate is a common congenital condition that can affect speech, hearing, eating, and appearance. 1,2 Even after surgical treatment, patients with cleft palate might retain secondary deformities, such as midface concavity, crossbite, maxillary arch stenosis, and dentition crowding, attributable to multiple factors. [3][4][5] Palatoplasty is a significant factor that causes growth and development deficiency. The ideal surgical outcome of cleft repair should be velopharyngeal closure for speech recovery, preservation of facial growth, and proper dental development. However, achieving normal speech and minimizing the effects on maxillary growth restriction have proven a Background: The purpose of this study was to investigate dental arch changes after modified Sommerlad palatoplasty in patients with cleft palate by intraoral scanning technique in children with early deciduous dentition. Methods: This study included 60 patients with nonsyndromic unilateral complete cleft lip with palate or cleft palate only treated by modified Sommerlad palatoplasty without relaxed excision before 18 months of age and 95 healthy controls without cleft. Three-dimensional images of the maxillary dental arches of all participants at age 3 to 4 years were obtained by intraoral scanning technique. Seven parameters (anterior dental arch width, middle dental arch width, posterior dental arch width, anterior palatal arch width, posterior palatal arch width, anterior dental arch length, and entire dental arch length) were measured.Results: Compared with the male group, the posterior palatal arch width distance of controls in the female group decreased significantly (P = 0.039), and the middle dental arch width, posterior dental arch width, and posterior palatal arch width distance of female patients decreased (P = 0.013, P = 0.002, P = 0.005, respectively). The anterior dental arch length and entire dental arch length distance of children in the unilateral complete cleft lip with palate group was shorter than those of children with cleft palate only (P < 0.0001, P < 0.0001, respectively). The patient group showed decreased distance of anterior dental arch width, anterior palatal arch width, anterior dental arch length, and entire dental arch length, and increased distance of posterior dental arch width and posterior palatal arch width compared with the control group (P = 0.0002, P = 0.002, P < 0.0001, P < 0.0001, P = 0.007, P = 0.027, respectively). Conclusion:The results indicated that the modified palatoplasty group showed no growth inhibition in the middle or posterior dental arch width, or palatal arch width, but slight but significant inhibition in the length of the anterior and entire dental arch.

show abstract

Effects of labial adhesion on maxillary arch dimensions and nasolabial esthetics in cleft lip and palate: a systematic review

Cited by 15 publications

References 42 publications

Primary Repair of Cleft Lip and Nose in the Neonatal Period

Primary Repair of Cleft Lip and Nose in the Neonatal Period

Evidence Mapping and Quality Analysis of Systematic Reviews on Various Aspects Related to Cleft Lip and Palate

Intraoral Scanning Evaluation of Maxillary Arch Changes after Modified Sommerlad Palatoplasty for around Three Years

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About