2011
DOI: 10.5005/jp-journals-10005-1096
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

Modified Intraoral Repositioning Appliance in Complete Bilateral Cleft Lip and Palate

Abstract: ObjectiveThe purpose of the modified repositioning appliance was to overcome the shortcoming of existing design for repositioning protruded premaxilla in a child with bilateral cleft lip and palate.MethodsThe basic principles of design were similar to Latham’s appliance but the surgical pinning of premaxillary segment was avoided and instead acrylic splint was prepared.ConclusionsThis technique avoids any invasive procedure, is useful to reposition protruded premaxillary segment in bilateral cleft lip and pala… Show more

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
2

Citation Types

0
2
0

Year Published

2021
2021
2021
2021

Publication Types

Select...
1

Relationship

0
1

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 1 publication
(2 citation statements)
references
References 12 publications
0
2
0
Order By: Relevance
“…30 However, this device is unsuitable for children in older age groups; it involves cumbersome extraoral traction, and oral pinning may interfere with maxillary growth and tooth bud development, increasing the risk of crossbites. 9,37,38 Despite these shortcomings, nearly 40% of patients were treated with surgical orthopedic techniques over NAM (Supplemental Table 5, http://links.lww.com/SCS/D272). However, these findings could be confounded, as a majority of patients using the Latham device were reported from older studies, while those published more recently used NAM instead.…”
Section: Discussionmentioning
confidence: 99%
See 1 more Smart Citation
“…30 However, this device is unsuitable for children in older age groups; it involves cumbersome extraoral traction, and oral pinning may interfere with maxillary growth and tooth bud development, increasing the risk of crossbites. 9,37,38 Despite these shortcomings, nearly 40% of patients were treated with surgical orthopedic techniques over NAM (Supplemental Table 5, http://links.lww.com/SCS/D272). However, these findings could be confounded, as a majority of patients using the Latham device were reported from older studies, while those published more recently used NAM instead.…”
Section: Discussionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Unlike the noninvasive nature of NAM, these devices involve surgical pinning to the palatal shelves and premaxillary neck to provide forced backward traction and correct placement of the premaxilla 30 . However, this device is unsuitable for children in older age groups; it involves cumbersome extraoral traction, and oral pinning may interfere with maxillary growth and tooth bud development, increasing the risk of crossbites 9,37,38 . Despite these shortcomings, nearly 40% of patients were treated with surgical orthopedic techniques over NAM ( Supplemental Table 5, http://links.lww.com/SCS/D272 ) .…”
Section: Discussionmentioning
confidence: 99%