Facial Growth in Children With Complete Cleft of the Primary Palate and Intact Secondary Palate

Saperstein, Elliot L.; Kennedy, Daniel; Mulliken, John B.; Padwa, Bonnie L.

doi:10.1016/j.joms.2011.08.022

Cited by 30 publications

(14 citation statements)

References 15 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…Repair at any age—with or without premaxillary setback—causes some inhibition of midfacial growth; as many as 40% to 70% of teenagers with repaired bilateral cleft lip and palate will need maxillary advancement (Good et al, 2007; Voshol et al, 2012; Heliovaara et al, 2013). We did not observe abnormal maxillary growth in the six patients with intact secondary palate, consistent with reports demonstrating primary premaxillary setback does not affect midfacial growth in children with this deformity (Mulliken, 2003, 2009; Saperstein et al, 2012). On the contrary, 18 of 19 patients with bilateral cleft lip and palate demonstrated early dental findings of maxillary retrusion.…”

Section: Discussionsupporting

confidence: 91%

Primary Premaxillary Setback and Repair of Bilateral Complete Cleft Lip: Indications, Technique, and Outcomes

Vyas

Kim²,

Padwa

et al. 2016

The Cleft Palate Craniofacial Journal

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Primary premaxillary ostectomy and setback permits synchronous bilateral nasolabial-alveolar closure or alveolar-palatal repair in a child with intact secondary palate. This procedure should be considered whenever dentofacial orthopedics cannot be accomplished. Speech is paramount in an older child; setback with palatal closure is scheduled before nasolabial repair. Disturbance of midfacial growth is likely following primary premaxillary ostectomy and setback in patients with bilateral complete cleft lip/palate; however, most already need maxillary advancement. Furthermore, premaxillary setback permits proper primary nasolabial design and construction in appreciation of expected changes with growth.

show abstract

Section: Discussionsupporting

confidence: 91%

Primary Premaxillary Setback and Repair of Bilateral Complete Cleft Lip: Indications, Technique, and Outcomes

Vyas

Kim²,

Padwa

et al. 2016

The Cleft Palate Craniofacial Journal

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…22,23 On the other hand, many authors agree that palate repair causes adverse effects of variable severity on transverse and anterior-posterior maxillary growth. 16,18,19,24 Kramer et al 25 verified that sagittal maxillary growth slows down immediately after hard palate closure. Kremenak et al 26 and Wijdeveld et al 27 confirmed this relationship with animal studies.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

3D analysis of effects of primary surgeries in cleft lip/palate children during the first two years of life

et al. 2017

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

3D analysis of effects of primary surgeries in cleft lip/palate children during the first two years of life Abstract: This study aimed at monitoring the maxillary growth of children with cleft lip/palate in the first two years of life, and to evaluate the effects of primary surgeries on dental arch dimensions. The sample consisted of the three-dimensional digital models of 25 subjects with unilateral complete cleft lip and palate (UCLP) and 29 subjects with isolated cleft palate (CP). Maxillary arch dimensions were measured at 3 months (before lip repair), 1 year (before palate repair), and at 2 years of age. Student's ttest was used for comparison between the groups. Repeated measures ANOVA followed by Tukey's test was used to compare different treatment phases in the UCLP group. Paired ttest was used to compare different treatment phases in the CP group. P<0.05 was considered statistically significant. Decreased intercanine distance and anterior arch length were observed after lip repair in UCLP. After palate repair, maxillary dimensions increased significantly, except for the intercanine distance in UCLP and the intertuberosity distance in both groups. At the time of palate repair and at two years of age, the maxillary dimensions were very similar in both groups. It can be concluded that the maxillary arches of children with UCLP and CP changed as a result of primary surgery.

show abstract

“…The deviations in the morphology of the facial skeleton in subjects with CL are by other investigators shown to be very mild and to primarily affect the cleft region. .…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Short mandible – a possible risk factor for cleft palate with/without a cleft lip

Hermann

Darvann

Ersbøll

et al. 2014

Orthod Craniofacial Res

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

Facial Growth in Children With Complete Cleft of the Primary Palate and Intact Secondary Palate

Cited by 30 publications

References 15 publications

Primary Premaxillary Setback and Repair of Bilateral Complete Cleft Lip: Indications, Technique, and Outcomes

Primary Premaxillary Setback and Repair of Bilateral Complete Cleft Lip: Indications, Technique, and Outcomes

3D analysis of effects of primary surgeries in cleft lip/palate children during the first two years of life

Short mandible – a possible risk factor for cleft palate with/without a cleft lip

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About