Novel 3-D Analysis for the Assessment of Cleft Dimensions on Digital Models of Infants With Unilateral Cleft Lip and Palate

Abstract

Objective:

To present a 3-D standardized analysis of cleft dimensions.

Materials:

Thirty-one plaster casts of unilateral cleft lip and palate (UCLP) infants were laser scanned. Landmarks and coordinate system were defined. Linear distances and surfaces were measured, and the ratio between cleft and palatal area was calculated (3-D infant cleft severity ratio [3D ICSR]). The digitally measured areas were compared with silicone membranes, adapted to the plaster casts, and analyzed by optic microscopy.

Main Outcome Measures:

Repeatability, reproducibility, and validity.

Results:

Bland-Altman plots showed minor bias for anterior cleft width (0.16 mm), arch length (0.23 mm), and palatal surface (−9.18 mm²). The random error was maximum 0.78 mm for linear measurements and 12.1 mm² for area measurements, reliability of 3D ICSR was 0.99 (intraclass correlation coefficient), differences between measurements on digital and plaster models were less than 2%.

Conclusions:

The method offers valid and reproducible 3-D assessment of cleft size and morphology. 3-D infant cleft severity ratio can be used as baseline value for surgical planning and may have a role in predicting dentofacial development.

Keywords

craniofacial growth dental arch dental occlusion hard palate maxilla orthodontics palatal development palatoplasty surgical technique infant orthopedics

Get full access to this article

View all access options for this article.

References

Aduss

Pruzansky

. Width of cleft at level of the tuberosities in complete unilateral cleft lip and palate. Plast Reconstr Surg. 1968;41(2):113–123.

Antonarakis

Tompson

Fisher

. Preoperative cleft lip measurements and maxillary growth in patients with unilateral cleft lip and palate. Cleft Palate Craniofac J. 2016;53(6):e198–e207.

Berkowitz

Duncan

Evans

Friede

Kuijpers-Jagtman

Prahl-Anderson

Rosenstein

. Timing of cleft palate closure should be based on the ratio of the area of the cleft to that of the palatal segments and not on age alone. Plast Reconstr Surg. 2005;115(6):1483–1499.

Bland

Altman

. Comparing two methods of clinical measurement: a personal history. Int J Epidemiol. 1995;24(suppl 1):S7–S14.

Bootvong

Liu

McGrath

Hagg

Wong

Bendeus

Yeung

. Virtual model analysis as an alternative approach to plaster model analysis: reliability and validity. Eur J Orthod. 2010;32(5):589–595.

Brief

Behle

Stellzig-Eisenhauer

Hassfeld

. Precision of landmark positioning on digitized models from patients with cleft lip and palate. Cleft Palate Craniofac J. 2006;43(2):168–173.

Dahlberg

. Statistical Methods for Medical and Biological Students. New York, NY: Interscience Publications; 1940.

De Menezes

Ceron-Zapata

Lopez-Palacio

Mapelli

Pisoni

Sforza

. Evaluation of a three-dimensional stereophotogrammetric method to identify and measure the palatal surface area in children with unilateral cleft lip and palate. Cleft Palate Craniofac J. 2016;53(1):16–21.

Harris

Smith

. Accounting for measurement error: a critical but often overlooked process. Arch Oral Biol. 2009;54(suppl 1):S107–S117.

10.

Honda

Suzuki

Nakamura

Ohishi

. Relationship between primary palatal form and maxillofacial growth in Japanese children with unilateral cleft lip and palate: infancy to adolescence. Cleft Palate Craniofac J. 2002;39(5):527–534.

11.

Honda

Suzuki

Ohishi

Tashiro

. Longitudinal study on the changes of maxillary arch dimensions in Japanese children with cleft lip and/or palate: infancy to 4 years of age. Cleft Palate Craniofac J. 1995;32(2):149–155.

12.

Houston

. The analysis of errors in orthodontic measurements. Am J Orthod. 1983;83(5):382–390.

13.

Johnson

Williams

Singer

Southall

Sandy

. Initial cleft size does not correlate with outcome in unilateral cleft lip and palate. Eur J Orthod. 2000;22(1):93–100.

14.

Kriens

. Three-dimensional model analysis of infants with clefts using the reflex microscope. In: Kriens

, ed. What is a Cleft Lip and Palate? A Multidisciplinary Update. Stuttgart, Germany: Thieme; 1989:139–142.

15.

Kuijpers-Jagtman

. Model analysis comparison of BCLP data and the leighton-data measured with the OPTOCOM. In: Kriens

, ed. What is a Cleft Lip and Palate? A Multidisciplinary Update. Stuttgart, Germany: Thieme; 1989:137–139.

16.

Mazaheri

Harding

Cooper

Meier

Jones

. Changes in arch form and dimensions of cleft patients. Am J Orthod. 1971;60(1):19–32.

17.

Peltomaki

Vendittelli

Grayson

Cutting

Brecht

. Associations between severity of clefting and maxillary growth in patients with unilateral cleft lip and palate treated with infant orthopedics. Cleft Palate Craniofac J. 2001;38(6):582–586.

18.

Russell

Long

Jr Romberg

. The effect of cleft size in infants with unilateral cleft lip and palate on mixed dentition dental arch relationship. Cleft Palate Craniofac J. 2015;52(5):605–613.

19.

Seckel

van der Tweel

Elema

Specken

. Landmark positioning on maxilla of cleft lip and palate infant—a reality? Cleft Palate Craniofac J. 1995;32(5):434–441.

20.

Springate

. The effect of sample size and bias on the reliability of estimates of error: a comparative study of Dahlberg’s formula. Eur J Orthod. 2012;34(2):158–163.

21.

Stöckli

. Application of a quantitative method for arch form evaluation in complete unilateral cleft lip and palate. Cleft Palate J. 1971;8:322–341.

Supplementary Material

Please find the following supplemental material available below.

For Open Access articles published under a Creative Commons License, all supplemental material carries the same license as the article it is associated with.

For non-Open Access articles published, all supplemental material carries a non-exclusive license, and permission requests for re-use of supplemental material or any part of supplemental material shall be sent directly to the copyright owner as specified in the copyright notice associated with the article.

0.00 MB

0.01 MB

7.91 MB