MATERIALS AND METHODS: Nineteen linear facial measurements were derived from 16 standardized surface landmarks obtained from 37 cleft patients (20 males, 17 females; mean age 23.84 years, standard deviation ± 6.02). They were taken manually with calipers and were compared with the digitally calculated distance on the 3D images captured using the VECTRA-M5 360° Imaging System with pre-marked landmarks. Another pair of 19 linear measurements were computed on the 3D images 2 weeks apart for intra- and inter-observer agreements. Statistical analyses used were paired t test, the Bland-Altman analysis, and the intra-class correlation coefficient (ICC) index.
RESULTS: Most of the linear measurements showed no statistically significant differences between the proposed method and direct anthropometry linear measurements. Nevertheless, bias of the 3D imaging system is present in the linear measurements of the nose width and the upper vermillion height. The measurements' mean biases were within 2 mm, but the 95% limit of agreement was more than 2 mm. Intra- and inter-observer measurements generally showed good reproducibility. Four inter-observer measurements, the upper and lower face heights, nose width, and pronasale to left alar base were clinically significant.
CONCLUSIONS: Measurements obtained from this 3D imaging system are valid and reproducible for evaluating CLP patients.
CLINICAL RELEVANCE: The system is suitable to be used in a clinical setting for cleft patients. However, training of the operator is strictly advisable.
OBJECTIVES: This study examined the speech and hearing status of Malay-speaking children with CLP residing in Kuala Lumpur.
METHODS: Parents whose children were between the age of 5 and 7 years were recruited via the Cleft Lip and Palate Association of Malaysia (CLAPAM) registry. Parents completed a survey and the children completed a speech and hearing assessment at the Audiology and Speech Sciences Clinic, Universiti Kebangsaan Malaysia.
OUTCOMES: Speech measures include nasality rating, nasalance scores, articulation errors and speech intelligibility rating, while hearing measures include hearing thresholds and tympanometry results for each child.
RESULTS: Out of 118 registered members who fulfilled the inclusion criteria, 21 agreed to participate in the study. The overall speech and hearing status of children in this sample were poor. Only four (19%) participants had normal speech intelligibility rating and normal hearing bilaterally. In terms of overall cleft management, only four (19%) participants were seen by a cleft team while seven (33%) had never had their hearing tested prior to this study.
CONCLUSION: Participants in this sample had poor outcomes in speech and hearing and received uncoordinated and fragmented cleft care. This finding calls for further large scale research and collaborative efforts into improving and providing centralised, multidisciplinary care for children born with CLP.
METHOD: A total of one hundred and seven patients from age five to twelve years old with non-syndromic unilateral cleft lip and palate were included in the study. These patients have received cheiloplasty and one stage palatoplasty surgery but yet to receive alveolar bone grafting procedure. Five assessors trained in the use of the EUROCRAN index underwent calibration exercise and ranked the dental arch relationships and palatal morphology of the patients' study models. For intra-rater agreement, the examiners scored the models twice, with two weeks interval in between sessions. Variable factors of the patients were collected and they included gender, site, type and, family history of unilateral cleft lip and palate; absence of lateral incisor on cleft side, cheiloplasty and palatoplasty technique used. Associations between various factors and dental arch relationships were assessed using logistic regression analysis.
RESULT: Dental arch relationship among unilateral cleft lip and palate in local population had relatively worse scoring than other parts of the world. Crude logistics regression analysis did not demonstrate any significant associations among the various socio-demographic factors, cheiloplasty and palatoplasty techniques used with the dental arch relationship outcome.
CONCLUSIONS: This study has limitations that might have affected the results, example: having multiple operators performing the surgeries and the inability to access the influence of underlying genetic predisposed cranio-facial variability. These may have substantial influence on the treatment outcome. The factors that can affect unilateral cleft lip and palate treatment outcome is multifactorial in nature and remained controversial in general.