Occlusal Classification in Relation to Original Cleft Width in Patients With Unilateral Cleft Lip and Palate

Does cleft lip and palate affect the severity of malocclusion?

OBJECTIVE

The purpose of this study was to evaluate the 3D anatomical features of unilateral (UCLP) and bilateral (BCLP) complete cleft lip and palate with those of skeletal Class III dentofacial deformities.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

In total, 92 patients were divided into cleft and noncleft groups. The cleft group comprised 29 patients with UCLP and 17 patients with BCLP. The noncleft group comprised 46 patients with Class III dentofacial deformities. 3D anatomical landmarks were identified and the corresponding measurements were made on the cone-beam computed tomography (CBCT).

RESULTS

The differences between the affected and unaffected sides of the patients with UCLP were nonsignificant. The differences between the patients with UCLP and BCLP were nonsignificant except for the SNA angle. Significant differences between the patients with clefts and Class III malocclusion were identified for the SNA, A-N perpendicular, and A-N Pog line, indicating that the maxillae of the patients in the cleft group were more retrognathic and micrognathic. Relative to the noncleft group patients, the cleft group patients had a significantly smaller ramus height.

CONCLUSION

The affected and unaffected sides of the patients with UCLP did not exhibit significant differences. The maxillae of the patients with UCLP were significantly more retrognathic than those of the patients with BCLP. The maxillae and mandibles of the patients in the cleft group were more micrognathic and retropositioned relative to those of the noncleft Class III patients.

CLINICAL RELEVANCE

The maxillary and mandibular findings indicated greater deficiencies in the patients with UCLP or BCLP than in those with skeletal Class III malocclusion. Appropriate surgical design should be administered.

Six-year Burden of Care for Nonsyndromic Unilateral Cleft Lip and Palate Patients: A Comparison Between Cleft Centers and Noncleft Centers

OBJECTIVE

To determine differences in burden of care between nonsyndromic patients with unilateral cleft lip and palate undergoing treatment at American Cleft Palate-Craniofacial Association (ACPA)-accredited centers and nonaccredited centers in New York State.

DESIGN

A retrospective review of the New York Statewide Planning and Research Cooperative System database from January 2001 to December 2014 was performed using ICD-9 and CPT coding.

PATIENTS, PARTICIPANTS

This study included patients with unilateral cleft lip and palate who underwent both lip and palate repairs during their first  6 years of life. Exclusion criteria included orofacial cleft syndromes, follow-up under  6 years, and one-stage combined cleft lip and palate repairs.

RESULTS

Eighty-eight patients were treated at cleft centers, and 29 patients at nonaccredited centers (  n = 117). Age at primary palatoplasty (13.0 months vs 18.1 months;   p = .019), total number of cleft operations (2.3 vs 2.7;   p = .012), and total number of primary cleft-specific procedures (2.2 vs 2.5;   p = .0049) were significantly lower for patients treated in cleft centers. Age at primary cheiloplasty (4.8 months vs 4.6 months;   p = .865), post-cheiloplasty length of stay (1.2 days vs 1.2 days;   p = .673), post-palatoplasty length of stay (1.5 days vs 1.9 days;   p = .211), average hospital admissions (2.2 vs 2.3; p = 0.161), and total complication rates (34.1% vs 21.1%; p = 0.517) did not differ significantly between cleft centers and noncenters.

CONCLUSIONS

This data demonstrates some significant differences in overall 6 year burden of care for nonsyndromic patients with unilateral cleft lip and palate treated at ACPA-accredited cleft centers versus nonaccredited centers.

Retrognathic maxilla in individuals born with oral clefts is due to intrinsic factors and not only due to early surgical treatment

OBJECTIVES

To determine if the skeletal form of individuals born with oral clefts was associated with maxillary position.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

Lateral cephalometric radiographs of 90 individuals 8 to 12 years old born with or without cleft lip and palate paired by age and sex were used. Skull base length, cranial base angle, cranial deflection angle, and maxillary skeletal length and position were studied. Also, mandibular skeletal length and position, lower anterior facial height, and dental position were defined. Individuals were divided into three groups: 30 individuals born with cleft lip and palate with Class III malocclusion (UCLP Class III), 30 individuals born with cleft lip and palate with Class I malocclusion (UCLP Class I), and 30 individuals born without cleft lip and palate with Class III malocclusion (non-cleft Class III).

RESULTS

When comparing the UCLP Class III group with the UCLP Class I group, there were differences in maxillary position (P < .001) and mandibular position (P = .004) found. No differences were found when comparing the UCLP Class III group with the non-cleft Class III group.

CONCLUSIONS

There are intrinsic factors that affect craniofacial morphology of individuals born with cleft lip and palate.

Craniofacial Analysis May Indicate Co-Occurrence of Skeletal Malocclusions and Associated Risks in Development of Cleft Lip and Palate

Non-syndromic orofacial clefts encompass a range of morphological changes affecting the oral cavity and the craniofacial skeleton, of which the genetic and epigenetic etiologic factors remain largely unknown. The objective of this study is to explore the contribution of underlying dentofacial deformities (also known as skeletal malocclusions) in the craniofacial morphology of non-syndromic cleft lip and palate patients (nsCLP). For that purpose, geometric morphometric analysis was performed using full skull cone beam computed tomography (CBCT) images of patients with nsCLP (n = 30), normocephalic controls (n = 60), as well as to sex- and ethnicity- matched patients with an equivalent dentofacial deformity (n = 30). Our outcome measures were shape differences among the groups quantified via principal component analysis and associated principal component loadings, as well as mean shape differences quantified via a Procrustes distance among groups. According to our results, despite the shape differences among all three groups, the nsCLP group shares many morphological similarities in the maxilla and mandible with the dentofacial deformity group. Therefore, the dentoskeletal phenotype in nsCLP could be the result of the cleft and the coexisting dentofacial deformity and not simply the impact of the cleft.