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.
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 digitally derived 3-dimensional maxillary model incorporating the palatal defect was generated from the patient's existing cone beam computerized tomography data and compared with the scanned cast from the conventional impression for linear dimensions, area, and volume. The digitally derived cast was 3-dimensionally printed and the obturator fabricated using traditional techniques. Similarly, an obturator was fabricated from the conventional cast and the fit of both final obturator bulbs were compared in vivo.
RESULTS: The digitally derived model produced more accurate volumes and surface areas within the defect. The defect margins and peripheries were overestimated which was reflected clinically.
CONCLUSION: The digitally derived model provided advantages in the fabrication of the palatal obturator; however, further clinical research is required to refine consistency.
DESIGN: Cross-sectional study.
SETTING: A dental clinic and a general hospital.
PARTICIPANTS: Parents (N = 84) whose children were less than 12 years old with CL/P.
METHODS: Socio-demographic data and clinical characteristics of CL/P were collected. Self-administered validated Malay versions of the stress scale from the Depressive, Anxiety and Stress Scale-42 (DASS-42) and COPE Inventory questionnaires were used. Descriptive statistics and Multivariate Analysis of Covariance were used for data analysis.
RESULTS: The prevalence of stress among parents of children with CL/P was 21.4% [95% confidence interval (12.4, 30.4)]. The most common coping strategies were problem-focused (mean 58.15, standard deviation (SD) 7.75), followed by emotion-focused (mean 54.05, SD 4.78). The adjusted mean score for overall coping strategies was significantly different between stressed and non-stressed parents after adjustment for education, number of children, sex of child with CL/P, and cleft type [F (df) = 4.174 (3,74), P = .009]. There was a significant mean difference between stressed and non-stressed parents for avoidant coping strategies [P = .003]. Problem-focused and emotion-focused coping strategies did not differ after Bonferroni correction.
CONCLUSIONS: Around a fifth of parents caring for children with CL/P experienced stress and avoidant coping strategies were more common among stressed parents. Multi-disciplinary team care should provide social support to parents of children with CL/P.