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: Retrospective assessment using the Peer Assessment Rating (PAR) index.
SETTING: Consecutive patients treated by one consultant orthodontist at a tertiary care cleft center.
PARTICIPANTS: One hundred twenty-seven patients with either complete unilateral cleft lip and palate (UCLP) or bilateral cleft lip and palate (BCLP) consecutively treated with fixed appliances.
INTERVENTION: Fixed orthodontic appliance treatment and orthognathic surgery when required.
OUTCOMES: The PAR index assessment was carried out by a calibrated-independent assessor. Treatment duration, the number of patient visits, and data on dental anomalies were drawn from patient records and radiographs.
RESULTS: One hundred two patients' study models were assessed after exclusions. Mean start PAR score for UCLP (n = 71) was 43.9 (95% CI, 41.2-46.6, SD 11.5), with a mean score reduction of 84.3% (95% CI, 81.9-86.7, SD 10.1). The UCLP mean treatment time was 23.7 months with 20.1 appointments. Mean start PAR score for BCLP (n = 31) was 43.4 (95% CI, 39.2-47.6, SD 11.4), with a mean score reduction of 80.9% (95% CI, 76.3-85.5, SD 12.5). The BCLP mean treatment time was 27.8 months with 20.5 appointments.
CONCLUSION: These results compare well with other outcome reports, including those for patients without a cleft, and reflect the standard of care provided by an experienced cleft orthodontist. As with high-volume surgeons, orthodontic treatment for this high need group is favorable when provided by a high-volume orthodontist. These findings may be used for comparative audit with similar units providing cleft care.