METHOD: A cross sectional study was carried out where caretakers of cleft lip and/or palate were asked to complete the translated Malay language version of Strength Difficulties Questionnaire. The hearing status of the children was analyzed based on recent pure tone audiometric and tympanogram results. The patients' age, gender, type of cleft pathology, age of palatal surgery and behavioural patterns were examined for their potential relationship with hearing status.
RESULTS: A total of 74 children (148 ears) aged between 7 and 17 years with cleft lip and/or palate were recruited. The result showed 37 ears (25.0%) had hearing loss with majority suffered from mild conductive hearing loss. There were 16 ears (10.8%) that had persistent middle ear effusion. Hearing improvement occurred when palatal repair was performed at the age of less than 1 year old. (p = 0.015) There was no significant relationship between patients' gender, age, type of cleft and history of myringotomy with their hearing status. In terms of behavioural patterns, 16.3% were abnormal for total behavioural score, 39.2% for peer problem and 17.6% for conduct problem. For prosocial behaviour, 16.3% were rated low and very low. There was fair correlation between age and hyperactivity problems (r = 0.44). Patients' gender, type of cleft pathology, had been teased apart and hearing status was found not related to behavioural problems.
CONCLUSION: Cleft lip and/or palate patients have a good longterm hearing outcome. Majority had normal hearing and if there is hearing impairment, it is only a mild loss. Early palatal repair surgery before the age of 1 year can significantly reduce the risk of hearing loss. Cleft lip and/or palate patients experienced peer problems. There was no significant correlation between behavioural difficulty and hearing status among school-aged children with cleft lip and palate.
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.
DESIGN: A descriptive cross-sectional multicenter study based on a study questionnaire was conducted of parents of patients with cleft lip and/or palate.
SETTING: Three centers providing cleft care from different regions in Malaysia: the national capital of Kuala Lumpur, east coast of peninsular Malaysia, and East Malaysia on the island of Borneo.
PARTICIPANTS: Parents/primary caregivers of patients with cleft lip and/or palate.
RESULTS: There were 295 respondents from different ethnic groups: Malays (58.3%), indigenous Sabah (30.5%), Chinese (7.1%), Indian (2.4%), and indigenous Peninsular Malaysia and Sarawak (1.7%). Malay participants reported that attributing causes of cleft to God's will, superstitious beliefs that the child's father went fishing when the mother was pregnant or inheritance. Sabahans parents reported that clefts are caused by maternal antenatal trauma, fruit picking, or carpentry. The Chinese attribute clefts to cleaning house drains, sewing, or using scissors. Cultural background was reported by 98.3% of participants to pose no barrier in cleft treatment. Those from lower socioeconomic and educational backgrounds were more likely to encounter difficulties while receiving treatment, which included financial constraints and transportation barriers.
CONCLUSION: There is a wide range of cultural beliefs in the multiethnic society of Malaysia. These beliefs do not prevent treatment for children with cleft. However, they face challenges while receiving cleft treatment, particularly financial constraints and transportation barriers. Such barriers are more likely experienced by parents from lower income and lower education backgrounds.