Is Linear Advancement Related to Relapse in Unilateral Cleft Lip and Palate Orthognathic Surgery?

Watts, Gertrude; Antonarakis, Gregory S.; Forrest, Christopher R.; Tompson, Bryan; Phillips, John H.

doi:10.1597/14-061.1

Cited by 21 publications

(6 citation statements)

References 26 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Many researchers have studied this relation, with conflicting findings. Some articles have found no association between the two (Proffit et al, 1987;Posnick and Ewing, 1990;Louis et al, 1993;Watts et al, 2015;Bhatia et al, 2016). Bhatia et al showed that maxillary stability after surgery did not depend on the amount of advancement even when the anteroposterior movement was 10 to 22 mm (Bhatia et al, 2016).…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Impact of the Distance of Maxillary Advancement on Horizontal Relapse After Orthognathic Surgery

Fahradyan

Wolfswinkel

Clarke

et al. 2018

The Cleft Palate Craniofacial Journal

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Impact of the Distance of Maxillary Advancement on Horizontal Relapse After Orthognathic Surgery

Fahradyan

Wolfswinkel

Clarke

et al. 2018

The Cleft Palate Craniofacial Journal

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Previous reports describing conventional LeFort I osteotomy suggest that an advancement greater than 6 to 10 mm is difficult to achieve with a LeFort I osteotomy because of the potential for speech deterioration and/or the challenges presented by soft-tissue intensity and scarring (Cheung et al, 2006;Alkan et al, 2008;Choi et al, 2012). In contrast, a recent report (Watts et al, 2015) showed that final maxillary advancements of more than 10 mm were achieved successfully using a LeFort I osteotomy. Thus, in the present case, 1 or 2-jaw surgery could have been chosen for treatment.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 95%

The Elimination of Dental Crowding and Development of a Proper Dental Arch by Maxillary Anterior Segmental Distraction Osteogenesis for a Patient With UCLP

Tanikawa

Lee

Oonishi

et al. 2019

The Cleft Palate-Craniofacial Journal

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Objective: This report describes the case of a male patient with a complete unilateral cleft lip and palate who presented with midface deficiency and an anteroposteriorly constricted maxilla. Design: Case report Interventions: Correction involved anterior distraction of the segmented maxilla. Results: The present case demonstrates that elongation of the maxilla with anterior distraction is an effective way to develop a proper dental arch, correct anterior and posterior crowding, and improve a midface deficiency.

show abstract

“…This is the first study evaluating patients who have undergone more than 10 mm of LeFort I advancement measured postsurgically on the lateral cephalogram. Previous publications have reported larger planned LeFort I advancement of more than !10, but not the actual postsurgical movement (Poole et al, 1986;Houston et al, 1989;Kumar et al, 2006;Watts et al, 2015).…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Skeletal and Dental Correction and Stability Following LeFort I Advancement in Patients With Cleft Lip and Palate With Mild, Moderate, and Severe Maxillary Hypoplasia

Wangsrimongkol

Flores

Staffenberg

et al. 2021

The Cleft Palate Craniofacial Journal

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Objective: This study evaluates skeletal and dental outcomes of LeFort I advancement surgery in patients with cleft lip and palate (CLP) with varying degrees of maxillary skeletal hypoplasia. Design: Retrospective study. Method: Lateral cephalograms were digitized at preoperative (T1), immediately postoperative (T2), and 1-year follow-up (T3) and compared to untreated unaffected controls. Based on the severity of cleft maxillary hypoplasia, the sample was divided into 3 groups using Wits analysis: mild: ≤0 to ≥−5 mm; moderate: <−5 to >−10 mm; and severe: ≤−10 mm. Participants: Fifty-one patients with nonsyndromic CLP with hypoplastic maxilla who met inclusion criteria. Intervention: LeFort I advancement. Main Outcome Measure: Skeletal and dental stability post-LeFort I surgery at a 1-year follow-up. Results: At T2, LeFort I surgery produced an average correction of maxillary hypoplasia by 6.4 ± 0.6, 8.1 ± 0.4, and 10.7 ± 0.8 mm in the mild, moderate, and severe groups, respectively. There was a mean relapse of 1 to 1.5 mm observed in all groups. At T3, no statistically significant differences were observed between the surgical groups and controls at angle Sella, Nasion, A point (SNA), A point, Nasion, B point (ANB), and overjet outcome measures. Conclusions: LeFort I advancement produces a stable correction in mild, moderate, and severe skeletal maxillary hypoplasia. Overcorrection is recommended in all patients with CLP to compensate for the expected postsurgical skeletal relapse.

show abstract

Is Linear Advancement Related to Relapse in Unilateral Cleft Lip and Palate Orthognathic Surgery?

Abstract: Skeletal and dental relapse was found to be unrelated to the amount of maxillary linear advancement using conventional Le Fort I osteotomies in UCLP.

Cited by 21 publications

References 26 publications

Impact of the Distance of Maxillary Advancement on Horizontal Relapse After Orthognathic Surgery

Impact of the Distance of Maxillary Advancement on Horizontal Relapse After Orthognathic Surgery

The Elimination of Dental Crowding and Development of a Proper Dental Arch by Maxillary Anterior Segmental Distraction Osteogenesis for a Patient With UCLP

Skeletal and Dental Correction and Stability Following LeFort I Advancement in Patients With Cleft Lip and Palate With Mild, Moderate, and Severe Maxillary Hypoplasia

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About