Incisor and molar overjet, arch contraction, and molar relationship in the mixed dentition in repaired complete unilateral cleft lip and palate: A qualitative and quantitative appraisal

Abstract

Objective: To compare the mixed dentition incisor and molar overjet, severity of contraction of the dental arch, and the sagittal molar relationship on the cleft side vs the noncleft side in children with repaired complete unilateral cleft of the lip and palate (UCLP). Materials and Methods: Orthodontic records taken prior to orthodontic preparation for alveolar bone grafting were screened to select study casts from patients with nonsyndromic repaired complete UCLP who did not have mandibular skeletal or dental asymmetry. The study sample comprised dental casts from 74 children aged 8.9 6 1 years. Standardized digital photographs were acquired at 1:1 magnification. A coordinate system was developed using digital imageprocessing software (Photoshop CS4 and Adobe Illustrator). Incisor and molar overjet, Angle's classification, and arch contraction were recorded. Descriptive statistics, paired t-tests, and kappa statistics were used to compare the cleft and noncleft sides. Results: A negative overjet of À1 to À5 mm was often present at the incisors, with greater frequency and magnitude on the cleft side. Class II molar relation was more frequent on the cleft side (61.1%) than on the noncleft side (47.2%). Significantly greater contraction of the cleft side deciduous canine and deciduous first molar was noted, while the difference was very minor at the first permanent molar. Conclusions: Cleft side maxillary arch contraction was most severe in the deciduous canine and first deciduous molar region and progressively less severe in the posterior region of the arch. A greater frequency and severity of negative overjet and Class II molar relationship was seen on the cleft side. (Angle Orthod. 2017;87:603-609)

Two-Dimensional Analysis of Digital Images through Vector Graphic Editors in Dentistry: New Calibration and Analysis Protocol Based on a Scoping Review

“…The selected papers date between 2006 and 2019 [ 20 , 21 , 22 , 23 , 24 , 25 , 26 , 27 , 28 , 29 , 30 , 31 , 32 , 33 , 34 , 35 , 36 , 37 , 38 , 39 , 40 ], are written in English, and are from the following countries: Brazil ( n = 8), Bulgary ( n = 1), Canada ( n = 1), China ( n = 1), Estonia ( n = 1), Japan ( n = 1), Jordan ( n = 1), India ( n = 2), Poland ( n = 1), Saudi Arabia ( n = 1), and Turkey ( n = 3). Supplemental Table S1 shows the results of the variables analysed in the selected papers.…”

“…The registered studies were: in vitro study ( n = 4) [ 22 , 23 , 29 , 31 ], fine element study ( n = 1) [ 27 ], cross-sectional study ( n = 9) [ 20 , 21 , 25 , 30 , 32 , 34 , 35 , 37 , 39 ], case–control ( n = 4) [ 24 , 28 , 33 , 36 ], and cohort study ( n = 3) [ 26 , 38 , 40 ].…”

Permanent maxillary central incisor and first molar rotations in the mixed dentition in repaired complete unilateral cleft lip and palate and their relationship with absence of teeth in their vicinity

“…The nearly 7.58 greater magnitude of mesiopalatal rotation of the permanent maxillary first molar on the cleft side could have been associated with several factors, including scar contracture and missing teeth in the buccal segments, and can explain the greater frequency of Class II molar relationship seen on the cleft side in the mixed dentition. 13,20 The average number of buccal quadrant teeth that were absent and the frequency of second premolar agenesis were greater on the cleft side. The magnitude of mesiopalatal rotation of the permanent maxillary first molar on the noncleft side was significantly greater (P,.05) when one or more deciduous and/or permanent buccal segment teeth were not present ( Table 6).…”

“…This method was described previously. 13 This system was required because of the lack of a reliable midline in the maxillary model due to the palate repair scar and the fact that the molar relationship was frequently different between the cleft and noncleft sides. 13 This precluded using an intermolar line as a basis for the analysis.…”

“…13 This system was required because of the lack of a reliable midline in the maxillary model due to the palate repair scar and the fact that the molar relationship was frequently different between the cleft and noncleft sides. 13 This precluded using an intermolar line as a basis for the analysis. While an analysis based on craniofacial computed tomography (CT) 14 or conebeam CT could be more precise, it would have involved a significant amount of additional radiation.…”