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.
MATERIALS AND METHODS: Systematic searches of PubMed, Scopus and Web of Science databases were conducted. Independent reviewers screened the title, abstract and full texts according to predetermined inclusion and exclusion criteria. Articles published in English from January 2012 to March 2022 reporting the QoL of non-syndromic young patients aged 7-18 years with CL/P were included. Review articles and articles reporting the psychological adjustment of parents or other family members with CL/P were excluded.
RESULTS: 975 publications were identified, of which 20 studies met our inclusion criteria. The majority of studies reported that the CL/P condition has a negative impact on the QoL. Psychological health, functional well-being, socialemotional well-being and school environment are domains that are affected. Compared with typically developing young patients, those with CL/P had lower QoL scores even though QoL was assessed using different instruments across studies. The impact of CL/P on overall QoL scores varied by age but not gender or cleft type.
CONCLUSION: Our reviews had shown the presence of CL/P negatively affects the QoL of young patients. Psychological health is the most affected QoL domain. Understanding the impacted domain will help in planning and delivering better health care for individuals with CL/P and reducing the stigma commonly associated with CL/P. Future studies should target intervention on psychological health and consider resilience factors towards positive adjustment.
DESIGN: Retrospective observational study.
SETTING: Two regional cleft-referral centers.
MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: In the current study, 101 pairs of dental models of non-syndromic CUCLP patients were retrieved from hospital archives. Each occlusal relationship from central incisor till the first permanent molars were scored except the lateral incisor. Sum of 10 occlusal relationships in each study sample gave a total occlusion score. The primary outcome was the mean total occlusion score.
RESULTS: According to MHB, a mean (standard deviation) total occlusion score of -8.92 (6.89) was determined. Based on treatment outcome, 66 cases were favorable (grades 1, 2, and 3) and 35 cases were unfavorable (grades 4 and 5). Chi-square tests indicated, difference of cheiloplasty ( P = .001) and palatoplasty ( P < .001) statistically significant. Five variables-gender, family history of cleft, cleft side, cheiloplasty, and palatoplasty-were analyzed with a logistic regression model.
CONCLUSIONS: Final model indicated that cases treated with modified Millard technique (cheiloplasty) and Veau-Wardill-Kilner method (palatoplasty) had higher odds of unfavorable treatment outcome.
SEARCH METHODS: Electronic and manual search was done up to October 2017.
ELIGIBILITY CRITERIA: Clinical and observational studies that compared GPP to control; patients without GPP evaluated either before or after the age for secondary bone graft (SBG).
DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Studies selection was done by 2 authors independently. Risk ratio and mean difference with 95% confidence intervals (CIs) were calculated using random-effects models.
RESULTS: Thirteen articles were included in the review. All studies were at high risk of bias. Poorer alveolar bone quality was found in the GPP group compared to the SBG group. The pooled data showed a statistically significant increase in the incidence of Bergland type III in the GPP group compared to SBG (risk ratio: 11.51, 95% CI: 3.39-35.15). As for facial growth, GPP group resulted in a more retruded maxillary position (as indicated by "Sella-Nasion-Subspinale" angle [SNA value]) compared to control group by -1.36 (CI: -4.21 to 1.49) and -1.66 (CI: -2.48 to -0.84) when evaluated at 5 and 10 years, respectively. The protocol for presurgical infant orthopedics used in conjunction with the GPP procedure might have affected the results of the alveolar bone and facial growth outcomes.
CONCLUSIONS: Definitive conclusions about the effectiveness of GPP cannot be drawn. Very weak evidence indicated that GPP might not be an efficient method for alveolar bone reconstruction for patients with unilateral and bilateral CLP. Gingivoperiosteoplasty surgery could lead to maxillary growth inhibition in patients with CLP.