Skip to main content
Key Specialties
Cardiology Diabetology Endocrinology Gastroenterology Geriatrics and Gerontology Gynecology and Obstetrics Hematology Infectious Disease Internal Medicine Nephrology Neurology Oncology Pediatrics Respiratory Medicine Rheumatology Surgery
Congress Coverage
2024 ACC Congress 2023 ESMO Congress 2023 EASD Congress 2023 ERS Congress 2023 ESC Congress
Clinical Collections
Advances in Alzheimer’s

At a glance: The STEP trials

A round-up of the STEP phase 3 clinical trials evaluating semaglutide for weight loss in people with overweight or obesity.
ADVANCED SEARCH
Log in
Top
BMC Pediatrics
Published in: BMC Pediatrics 1/2017

Open Access 01-12-2017 | Research article

The effect of various factors on the dental arch relationship in non-syndromic unilateral cleft lip and palate children assessed by new approach: a retrospective study

Authors: Sanjida Haque, Mohammad Khursheed Alam, Mohd Fadhli Khamis

Published in: BMC Pediatrics | Issue 1/2017

Login to get access

Abstract

Background

Cleft lip and palate (CLP) is one of the most common birth defects. Multiple factors are believed to be responsible for an unfavorable dental arch relationship in CLP. Facial growth (maxillary) retardation, which results in class III malocclusion, is the primary challenge that CLP patients face. Phenotype factors and postnatal treatment factors influence treatment outcomes in unilateral cleft lip and palate (UCLP) children, which has led to a great diversity in protocols and surgical techniques by various cleft groups worldwide. The aim of this study was to illustrate the dental arch relationship (DAR) and palatal morphology (PM) of UCLP in Bangladeshi children and to explore the various factors that are responsible for poor DAR and PM.

Methods

Dental models of 84 subjects were taken before orthodontic treatment and alveolar bone grafting. The mean age was 7.69 (SD 2.46) years. The DAR and PM were assessed blindly by five raters using the EUROCRAN index (EI). Kappa statistics was used to evaluate the intra- and inter-examiner agreement, chi square was used to assess the associations, and logistic regression analysis was used to explore the responsible factors that affect DAR and PM.

Results

The mean EUROCRAN scores were 2.44 and 1.93 for DAR and PM, respectively. Intra- and inter-examiner agreement was moderate to very good. Using crude and stepwise backward regression analyses, significant associations were found between the modified Millard technique (P = 0.047, P = 0.034 respectively) of cheiloplasty and unfavorable DAR. Complete UCLP (P = 0.017) was also significantly correlated with unfavorable DAR. The PM showed a significant association with the type of cleft, type of cheiloplasty and type of palatoplasty.

Conclusion

This multivariate study determined that the complete type of UCLP and the modified Millard technique of cheiloplasty had significantly unfavorable effects on both the DAR and PM.
Literature
1.
2.
Haque S, Alam MK, Basri R. Gene involvement in cleft lip and palate (CLP) patients. Ban J Med Sci. 2015;14:113–6.
3.
4.
5.
Sandy JR, Williams AC, Bearn D, Mildinhall S, Murphy T, Sell D, Murray JJ, Shaw WC. Cleft lip and palate care in the United Kingdom--the clinical standards advisory group (CSAG) study. Part 1: background and methodology. Cleft Palate Craniofac J. 2001;38:20–3.CrossRefPubMed
6.
Chiu YT, Liao YF. Is cleft severity related to maxillary growth in patients with unilateral cleft lip and palate? Cleft Palate Craniofac J. 2012;49:535–40.CrossRefPubMed
7.
Fudalej P, Katsaros C, Bongaarts C, Dudkiewicz Z, Jagtman AMK. Dental arch relationship in children with complete unilateral cleft lip and palate following one-stage and three-stage surgical protocols. Clin Oral Invest. 2011;15:503–10.CrossRef
8.
Liao YF, Cole TJ, Mars M. Hard palate repair timing and facial growth in unilateral cleft lip and palate: a longitudinal study. Cleft Palate Craniofac J. 2006;43:547–56.CrossRefPubMed
9.
Alam MK, Iida J, Sato Y, Kajii TS. Postnatal treatment factors affecting craniofacial morphology of unilateral cleft lip and palate (UCLP) patients in a Japanese population. Br J Oral Maxillofac Surg. 2012;51:205–10.CrossRef
10.
Atack N, Hathorn IS, Semb G, Dowell T, SANDY J. A new index for assessing surgical outcome in unilateral cleft lip and palate subjects aged five: reproducibility and validity. Cleft Palate Craniofac J. 1997b;34:242–6.CrossRefPubMed
11.
Fudalej P, Katsaros C, Dudkiewicz Z, Offert B, Piwowar W, Kuijpers M, Kuijpers-Jagtman AM. Dental arch relationships following palatoplasty for cleft lip and palate repair. J Dent Res. 2012;91:47–51.CrossRefPubMed
12.
Mars M, Plint DA, Houston WJB, Bergland O, Semb G. The GOSLON Yardstick: a new system of assessing dental arch relationships in children with unilateral clefts of the lip and palate. Cleft Palate J. 1987;24:314–22.PubMed
13.
Mossey PA, Clark JD, Gray D. Preliminary investigation of a modified Huddart/Bodenham scoring system for assessment of maxillary arch constriction in unilateral cleft lip and palate subjects. Eur J Orthod. 2003;25:251–7.CrossRefPubMed
14.
Gray D, Mossey PA. Evaluation of a modified Huddart/Bodenham scoring system for assessment of maxillary arch constriction in unilateral cleft lip and palate subjects. Eur Jo Orthod. 2005;27:507–11.CrossRef
15.
Ferdous KMN, Ullah MS, Shajahan M, Mitul MAR, et al. Simultaneous repair of cleft hard palate by Vomer flap along with cleft lip in unilateral complete cleft lip and palate patients. ISRN Plast Surg. 2013; doi:10.​5402/​2013/​954576.
16.
Apostol D. The Onijuka technique in treating the cleft lip and palate. Jurnalulpediatrulul. 2008;11:41–2.
17.
Zaleckas L, Linkevicine L, Olekas J, Kutra N. The comparison of different surgical techniques used for repair of complete unilateral cleft lip. Medicina (Kaunas). 2011;47:85–90.
18.
Sasaguri M, Hak MS, Nakamura N, Suzuki A, et al. Effects of Hotz’s plate and lip adhesion on maxillary arch in patients withcomplete unilateral cleft lip and palate until 5 years of age. J Oral MaxillofacSurgMedi Path. 2014;26:292–300.
19.
Bongaarts CA, van't Hof MA, Prahl-Andersen B, Dirks IV, Kuijpers-Jagtman AM. Infant orthopedics has no effect on maxillary arch dimensions in the deciduous dentition of children with complete unilateral cleft lip and palate (Dutchcleft). Cleft Palate Craniofac J. 2006;43:665–72.CrossRefPubMed
20.
Kajii TS, Alam MK, Milkoya T, Oyama A, et al. Congenital and postnatal factors including malocclusion in Japanese unilateral cleft lip and patient- determination using logistic regression analysis. Cleft Palate Craniofac J. 2013;50:466–72.CrossRefPubMed
21.
Alam MK, Kajii TS, Matsuno MK, Kato YS, Iida J. Multivariate analysis of factors affecting dental arch relationships in Japanese unilateral cleft lip and palate patients at Hokkaido University Hospital. Orthodontic Waves. 2008;67:45–53.CrossRef
22.
Mars M, Asher-McDade C, Brattstrom V, Dahl E, et al. A six-center international study of treatment outcome in patients with clefts of the lip and palate. Part 3. Dental arch relationships. Cleft Palate Craniofac J. 1992;29:405–8.CrossRefPubMed
23.
Chan KT, Hayes C, Shusterman S, Mulliken JB, Will LA. The effects of active infant orthopsedics on occlusal relationships in unilateral complete cleft lip and palate. Cleft Palate Craniofac J. 2003;40:511–7.CrossRefPubMed
24.
Altman DG. Practical statistics for medical research. London: Chapman and Hall; 1991. p. p325–64. 404-8
25.
Friede H, Enemark H, Semb G, Paulin G, Abyholm F, Bolund S, Lilja J, Ostrup L. Craniofacial and occlusal characteristics in unilateral cleft lip and palate patients from four Scandinavian centres. Scand J Plast Reconstr Surg Hand Surg. 1991;25:269–76.CrossRefPubMed
26.
Huddart AG, Bodenham RS. The evaluation of arch form and occlusion in unilateral cleft palate subjects. Cleft Palate J. 1972;9:194–209.PubMed
27.
Sabelis AJ, Kuijpers MA, Nada RM, Chiu YT, Bronkhorst EM, Kuijpers-Jagtman AM, Fudalej PS. Rating dental arch relationships and palatal morphology with the EUROCRAN index on three different formats of dental casts in children with unilateral cleft lip and palate. Clin Oral Investig. 2016;20:943–50.CrossRefPubMed
28.
Haque S, Alam MK. Spectrum of chieloplasyhas detrimental effect on: myth or fact? Ban J Med Sci. 2014;13:473–6.
29.
30.
Haque S, Alam MK. Spectrum of palatoplasty has detrimental effect on: myth or fact? Ban J Med Sci. 2015;14:109–10.
31.
Liao YF, Lee YH, Wang R, Huang CS, Chen PKH, Lo LJ, Chen YR. Vomer flap for hard palate repair is related to favorable maxillary growth in unilateral cleft lip and palate. Clin Oral Invest. 2014;18:1269–76.CrossRef
32.
Friede H, Enemark H. Long term evidence for favorable mid facial growth after delayed hard palate repair in UCLP patients. Cleft Palate Craniofac J. 2001;38:323–9.CrossRefPubMed
Metadata
Title
The effect of various factors on the dental arch relationship in non-syndromic unilateral cleft lip and palate children assessed by new approach: a retrospective study
Authors
Sanjida Haque
Mohammad Khursheed Alam
Mohd Fadhli Khamis
Publication date
01-12-2017
Publisher
BioMed Central
Published in
BMC Pediatrics / Issue 1/2017
Electronic ISSN: 1471-2431
DOI
https://doi.org/10.1186/s12887-017-0870-4

Other articles of this Issue 1/2017

BMC Pediatrics 1/2017 Go to the issue

Research article

Rigour and Rapport: a qualitative study of parents’ and professionals’ experiences of joint agency infant death investigation

Study protocol

Effectiveness of skin-to-skin contact versus care-as-usual in mothers and their full-term infants: study protocol for a parallel-group randomized controlled trial

Study protocol

Enteral vitamin A for reducing severity of bronchopulmonary dysplasia in extremely preterm infants: a randomised controlled trial

Research article

Risk factors for necrotizing enterocolitis in neonates: a systematic review of prognostic studies

Research article

Factors associated with anemia among Sri Lankan primary school children in rural North Central Province

Research article

Effect of combined music and touch intervention on pain response and β-endorphin and cortisol concentrations in late preterm infants