Maxillary shape after primary cleft closure and before alveolar bone graft in two different management protocols: A comparative morphometric study

Girinon, François; Ketoff, Serge; Hennocq, Quentin; Kogane, N.; Ullman, Natalie; Kadlub, Natacha; Galliani, E.; Neiva-Vaz, C.; Vazquez, Marie‐Paule; Picard, A.; Khonsari, R.H.

doi:10.1016/j.jormas.2019.02.001

Cited by 4 publications

(3 citation statements)

References 14 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Children with unilateral cleft lip and palate also exhibited significantly smaller intercanine distances (C-C’ and c-c’), mainly in those submitted to lip repair at 3 months of age (G1). This result agrees with other authors who compared different surgical times for cheiloplasty only at 5 years of age 13 . This could have happened due to the amount of bone mineralization.…”

Section: Discussionsupporting

confidence: 93%

See 1 more Smart Citation

What Are the Effects on Palate of Early Lip Surgery in Children With Cleft Lip and Palate? Cross-Sectional Evaluation From 5-Year-Old

Ambrosio,

Furiatto,

Coutinho

et al. 2023

Journal of Craniofacial Surgery

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

This study aimed to evaluate the postsurgical effects from 5 years on the palate after surgical repair of the lip at 3 or 9 months of age in children with cleft lip and palate. Eighty-four digitized dental impressions were divided into the following groups: group 1 (G1): lip surgery at 3 months of life; group 2 (G2): lip surgery at 9 months of life; group 3 (G3): without orofacial cleft. Five angular (C’IC, ICM, IC’M’, CMM’, and C’M’M) and 3 linear parameters (C-C’, c-c’, and M-M’) were evaluated. Statistical analysis was applied with α=5%. Intraclass Correlation Coefficient was significantly smaller in G1 than in G3 (P=0.005), while IC’M’ was significantly smaller in G3 than in G1 (P<0.001). C’M’M was significantly smaller in G1 than in G2 and G3 (P<0.001). The distances C-C’ and c-c’ were significantly smaller in G1 than in G2 and G3 (P<0.001). There was a statistically significant difference in both G1 and G2 (P<0.001, in all) in the analysis of palatal symmetry. Linear regression analysis showed that the, 11.2% of outcomes determined by c-c’ distance can be explained by the age of lip repair (P=0.013). In conclusion, lip surgery at 3 months of life showed a tendency toward more restriction in 5-year postsurgery palate development. The age of cheiloplasty is one of the factors that can influence palatal development; however, other factors may be associated and should be studied.

show abstract

Section: Discussionsupporting

confidence: 93%

“…This result agrees with other authors who compared different surgical times for cheiloplasty only at 5 years of age. 13 This could have happened due to the amount of bone mineralization. After birth, children have less mineralized and consequently more flexible bones.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

What Are the Effects on Palate of Early Lip Surgery in Children With Cleft Lip and Palate? Cross-Sectional Evaluation From 5-Year-Old

Ambrosio,

Furiatto,

Coutinho

et al. 2023

Journal of Craniofacial Surgery

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Indeed, the maxillary shape is an important parameter for proper evaluation of the future bone graft required for alveolar cleft reconstruction. Successful grafting requires harmonious maxillary shape and large inter-canine distance before permanent incisors and canines erupt [35,40]. A small alveolar defect or overlap between the maxillary segments with disharmonious alveolar arch is at risk for maxillary hypoplasia with subsequent poor functional prognosis.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Imaging Factors Affecting Prenatal Counseling in Orofacial Clefts

et al. 2023

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Introduction: we aim to correlate pre-and postnatal data regarding the cleft type and surgical prognostic factors associated to orofacial clefts. Methods: retrospective study concerning all cases of orofacial cleft evaluated prenatally (US+/-MRI) between 2015 and 2020 with available postnatal outcome. We compared prenatal imaging (cleft type and surgical prognostic factors) with postnatal findings. Results: 48 fetuses were included. Median gestational age at first US/MRI examination: 29WG+2D and 31WG+6D respectively. The prenatal diagnosis was in accordance with postnatal findings with regard to the cleft type in 88% of the cases (n=42/48) for US and/or MRI, 84% (n=38/45) for US only and 90% (n=37/41) for MRI only. The nasal septum deviation and nostril collapse were underestimated by prenatal US in 48% (n=12/25) and 44% (n=11/25) of cases respectively (Cohen’s kappa of 0.22 and 0.32 respectively). Pre-and postnatal examinations were in accordance in 75% of cases (n=8) regarding evaluation of anteroposterior maxillary shift in case of unilateral alveolar cleft and in 90% and 80% of cases (n=10) regarding the degree of protrusion/deviation of the premaxillary protrusion in case of bilateral cleft respectively. Conclusion: Prenatal imaging can accurately assess the type of orofacial cleft and evaluate maxillary shift and deviation of the premaxilla. It underestimates the nose deformity.

show abstract