To compare dental arch relationship outcomes following 3 different 2-stage palatal repair protocols.
Design:
Retrospective, cross sectional.
Setting:
Three cleft palate centers (A, B, C) in Japan.
Patients:
Ninety (A: 39, B: 26, C: 25) consecutively treated Japanese patients with complete unilateral cleft lip and palate.
Interventions:
In A, the soft palate and the posterior half of the hard palate were repaired at a mean age of 1 year 7 months. In B, the soft palate and hard palate were closed separately at a mean age of 1 year 6 months and 5 years 8 months, respectively. In C, the soft palate and hard palate were closed at a mean age of 1 year and 1 year 5 months, respectively.
Main Outcome Measures:
Dental arch relationships were assessed using the 5-Year-Olds’ (5-Y) index by 5 raters and the Huddart/Bodenham (HB) index by 2 raters.
Results:
Intra- and inter-rater reliabilities showed substantial or almost perfect agreement for the 5-Y and HB ratings. No significant differences in mean values and distributions of 5-Y scores were found among the 3 centers. The mean HB index scores of molars on the minor segment were significantly smaller in C than those in A and B (P < .05).
Conclusions:
There were no significant differences in dental arch relationships at 5 years among the times and techniques of hard palate closure. However, further analysis of the possible influence of infant cleft size as a covariable on a larger sample size is needed.
Al-GhatamRJonesTEIrelandAJAtackNEChawlaODeaconSAlberyLCobbARCadoganJLearyS, et al.Structural outcomes in the cleft care UK study. Part 2: dento-facial outcomes. Orthod Craniofac Res. 2015;18(suppl 2):14–24.
2.
AtackNEHathornIDowellTSandyJSembGLeachA. Early detection of differences in surgical outcome for cleft lip and palate. Br J Orthod. 1998;25(3):181–185.
3.
BardachJMorrisHLOlinWH. Late results of primary veloplasty: the Marburg project. Plast Reconstr Surg. 1984;73(2):207–215.
4.
BartzelaTLeenartsCBronkhorstEBorstlapWKatsarosCKuijpers-JagtmanAM. Comparison of two scoring systems for evaluation of treatment outcome in patients with complete bilateral cleft lip and palate. Cleft Palate Craniofac J. 2011;48(4):455–461.
5.
BerkowitzSDuncanREvansCFriedeHKuijpers-JagtmanAMPrahl-AndersonBSheldon RosensteinS. 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.
6.
BotticelliSKüselerAMarcussonAMølstedKNørholtSECattaneoPMPedersenTK. Do infant cleft dimensions have an influence on occlusal relations? A subgroup analysis within an RCT of primary surgery in patients with unilateral cleft lip and palate. Cleft Palate Craniofac J. 2020;57(3):378–388.
7.
CosmanBFalkAS. Delayed hard palate repair and speech deficiencies: a cautionary report. Cleft Palate J. 1980;17(1):27–33.
8.
DelaireJPreciousDS. Avoidance of the use of vomerine mucosa in primary surgical management of velopalatine clefts. Oral Surg Oral Med Oral Pathol. 1985;60(6):589–597.
9.
DorfDSCurtinJW. Early cleft palate repair and speech outcome. Plast Reconstr Surg. 1982;70(1):74–81.
10.
FlinnWLongREGarattiniGSembG. A multicenter outcomes assessment of five-year-old patients with unilateral cleft lip and palate. Cleft Palate Craniofac J. 2006;43(3):253–258.
11.
FriedeHLiljaJLohmanderA. Long-term, longitudinal follow-up of individuals with UCLP after the Gothenburg primary early veloplasty and delayed hard palate closure protocol: maxillofacial growth outcome. Cleft Palate Craniofac J. 2012;49(6):649–656.
12.
FriedeH. Maxillary growth controversies after two-stage palatal repair with delayed hard palate closure in unilateral cleft lip and palate patients: perspectives from literature and personal experience. Cleft Palate Craniofac J. 2007;44(2):129–136.
13.
FriedeH. The vomero-premaxillary suture – a neglected growth site in mid-facial development of unilateral cleft lip and palate patients. Cleft Palate J. 1978;15(4):398–404.
14.
FunayamaEYamamotoYNishizawaNMikoyaTOkamotoTImaiSMuraoNFurukawaHHayashiTOyamaA. Important points for primary cleft palate repair for speech derived from speech outcome after three different types of palatoplasty. Int J Pediatr Otorhinolaryngol. 2014;78(12):2127–2131.
15.
GaneshPMurthyJUlaghanathanNSavithaVH. A randomized controlled trial comparing two techniques for unilateral cleft lip and palate: growth and speech outcomes during mixed dentition. J Craniomaxillofac Surg. 2015;43(6):790–795.
16.
HeliövaaraAKüselerASkaarePShawWMølstedKKarstenABrinckERizellSMarcussonASæleP, et al.Scandcleft randomised trials of primary surgery for unilateral cleft lip and palate: 6. Dental arch relationships in 5 year-olds. J Plast Surg Hand Surg. 2017;51(1):52–57.
17.
HollandSGabbayJSHellerJBO’HaraCHurwitzDFordMDSauderASBradleyJP. Delayed closure of the hard palate leads to speech problems and deleterious maxillary growth. Plast Reconstr Surg. 2007;119(4):1302–1310.
18.
HotzMMGnoinskiWM. Effects of early maxillary orthopaedics in coordination with delayed surgery for cleft lip and palate. J Maxillofac Surg. 1979;7(3):201–210.
19.
HuddartAGBodenhamRS. The evaluation of arch form and occlusion in unilateral cleft palate subjects. Cleft Palate J. 1972;9(3):194–209.
20.
IkarashiYIidaAOnoKAsahitoTSaitoITakagiR. Permanent dentition after soft palate closure by Furlow’s method in two stage palatoplasty. J Jpn Cleft Palate Assoc. 2012;
37(3):210–219.
21.
JonesTLearySAtackNIrelandTSandyJ. Which index should be used to measure primary surgical outcome for unilateral cleft lip and palate patients?Eur J Orthod. 2016;38(4):345–352.
22.
KajiiTSAlamMKMikoyaTOyamaAKoshikawa-MatsunoMSugawara-KatoYSatoYIidaJ. Congenital and postnatal factors inducing malocclusions in Japanese unilateral cleft lip and palate patients—determination using logistic regression analysis. Cleft Palate Craniofac J. 2013;50(4):466–472.
23.
KappenIFPMBittermannGKPSchoutenRMBittermannDEttyEKooleRKonMMink. van der MolenABBreugemCC. Long-term mid-facial growth of patients with a unilateral complete cleft of lip, alveolus and palate treated by two-stage palatoplasty: cephalometric analysis. Clin Oral Invest. 2017;21(5):1801–1810.
24.
KarstenAMarcussonAHurmerintaKHeliövaaraAKüselerASkaarePBellardieHRønningEShawWMølstedK, et al.Scandcleft randomized trials of primary surgery for unilateral cleft lip and palate: 7. Occlusion in 5 year-olds according to the Huddart and Bodenham index. J Plast Surg and Hand Surg. 2017;51(1):58–63.
25.
KimTIshikawaHChuSHondaAIidaJYoshidaS. Contraction of the maxillary dental arch by mucoperiosteal denudation of the palate. Cleft Palate Craniofac J. 2002;39(4):425–431.
26.
KremenakCRJrHuffmanWCOlinWH. Maxillary growth inhibition by mucoperiosteal denudation of palatal shelf bone in non-cleft beagles. Cleft Palate J. 1970;7(4):817–825.
27.
LandisJRKochGG. The measurement of observer agreement for categorical data. Biometrics. 1977;33(1):159–174.
28.
LiaoYFMarsM. Hard palate repair timing and facial morphology in unilateral cleft lip and palate: before versus after pubertal peak velocity age. Cleft Palate Craniofac J. 2006a;43(3):259–265.
29.
LiaoYFMarsM. Hard palate repair timing and facial growth in unilateral cleft lip and palate: A systematic review. Cleft Palate Craniofac J. 2006b;43(5):563–570.
30.
LiljaJMarsMElanderAEnocsonLHagbergCWorrellEBatraPFriedeH. Analysis of dental arch relationships in Swedish unilateral cleft lip and palate subjects: 20-year longitudinal consecutive series treated with delayed hard palate closure. Cleft Palate Craniofac J. 2006;43(5):606–611.
31.
Lohmander-AgerskovAFriedeHSöderpalmELiljaJ. Residual clefts in the hard palate: correlation between cleft size and speech. Cleft Palate Craniofac J. 1997;34(2):122–128.
32.
Lohmander-AgerskovA. Speech outcome after cleft palate surgery with the Goteborg regimen including delayed hard palate closure. Scand J Plast Reconstr Surg Hand Surg. 1998;32(1):63–80.
33.
MarkusAFSmithWPDelaireJ. Primary closure of cleft palate: a functional approach. Br J Oral Maxillofac Surg. 1993;31(2):71–77.
34.
MarsMAsher-McDadeCBrattströmVDahlEMcWilliamJMølstedKPlintDAPrahl-AndersenBSembGShawWC, 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(5):405–408.
35.
MarsMBatraPWorrellE. Complete unilateral cleft lip and palate: validity of the five-year index and the GOSLON Yardstick in predicting long-term dental arch relationships. Cleft Palate Craniofac J. 2006;43(5):557–562.
36.
MarsMPlintDA. Correlation of the GOSLON Yardstick rating and cephalometric analysis. Presented at the Fifth International Congress on Cleft Palate and Craniofacial Anomalies; 1985; Monte Carlo, Monaco.
37.
MengTShiBHuangXZhengQWangYWuMLuYLiS. Roles of different areas of palatine bone denudation on growth and development of the maxilla and dental arch: an experimental study. J Craniofac Surg. 2007;18(2):391–398.
38.
MikoyaTShibukawaTSusamiTSatoYTenganTKatashimaHOyamaAMatsuzawaYItoYFunayamaE. Dental arch relationship outcomes in one- and two-stage palatoplasty for Japanese patients with complete unilateral cleft lip and palate. Cleft Palate Craniofac J. 2014;52(3):277–286.
39.
NishioJYamanishiTKoharaHHiranoYSakoMAdachiTMukaiTMiyaS. Early two-stage palatoplasty using modified Furlow’s veloplasty. Cleft Palate Craniofac J. 2010;47(1):73–81.
40.
NolletPJKatsarosCvan’t HofMAKuijpers-JagtmanAM. Treatment outcome in unilateral cleft lip and palate evaluated with the GOSLON Yardstick: a meta-analysis of 1236 patients. Plast Reconstr Surg. 2005a;116(5):1255–1262.
41.
NolletPJKatsarosCvan’t HofMASembGShawWCKuijpers-JagtmanAM. Treatment outcome after two-stage palatal closure in unilateral cleft lip and palate: a comparison with Eurocleft. Cleft Palate Craniofac J. 2005b;42(5):512–516.
42.
NoordhoffMSKuoJWangFHuangHWitzelMA. Development of articulation before delayed hard palate closure in children with cleft palate: a cross-sectional study. Plast Reconstr Surg. 1987;80(4):518–524.
43.
NoverrazAEMKuijpers-JagtmanAMMarsMVan’t HofMA. Timing of hard palate closure and dental arch relationships in unilateral cleft lip and palate patients: a mixed-longitudinal study. Cleft Palate Craniofac J. 1993;30(4):391–396.
44.
Owman-MollPKatsarosCFriedeH. Development of the residual cleft in the hard palate after velar repair in a 2-stage palatal repair regimen. J Orofac Orthop. 1998;59(5):286–300.
45.
ReddyRRReddySGVaidhyanathanABergSJKuijpers-JagtmanAM. Maxillofacial growth and speech outcome after one-stage or two-stage palatoplasty in unilateral cleft lip and palate. A systematic review. J Craniomaxillofac Surg. 2017;45(6):995–1003.
RohrichRJRowsellARJohnsDFDruryMAGriegGWatsonDJGodfreyAMPooleMD. Timing of hard palatal closure: a critical long-term analysis. Plast Reconstr Surg. 1996;98(2):236–246.
48.
RossRB. The clinical implications of facial growth in cleft lip and palate. Cleft Palate J. 1970;7(1):37–47.
49.
RossRB. Treatment variables affecting facial growth in complete unilateral cleft lip and palate. Part 5Cleft Palate J. 1987;24(1):54–63.
50.
SandyJAtackNE. The 5 Year Olds’ Index Course in Tokyo. July 18 and 19, 2012.
51.
SchweckendiekW. Primary veloplasty: long-term results without maxillary deformity. A twenty-five year report. Cleft Palate J. 1978;15(3):268–274.
52.
ShawWCDahlEAsher-McDadeCBrattstro¨M VMarsMMcWilliamJMølstedKPlintDAPrahl-AndersenBRobertsC, et al.A six-center international study of treatment outcome in patients with clefts of the lip and palate: part 5. General discussion and conclusions. Cleft Palate Craniofac J. 1992;29(5):413–418.
53.
SwennenGBertenJLSchliephakeHTreutleinCDempfRMalevezCDe MeyA. Midfacial morphology in children with unilateral cleft lip and palate treated by different surgical protocols. Int J Oral Maxillofac Surg. 2002;31(1):13–22.
54.
ThilanderBPerssonMAdolfssonU.Roentgencephalometric standards for a Swedish population. A longitudinal study between the ages of 5 and 31 years. Eur J Orthod. 2005;27(4):370–389.
55.
WijdeveldMGGruppingEMKuijpers-JagtmanAMMalthaJC. Mucoperiosteal migration after palatal surgery in beagle dogs. A longitudinal radiographic study. Int J Oral Maxillofac Surg. 1987;16(6):729–737.
56.
WijdeveldMGMalthaJCGruppingEMDe JongeJKuijpers-JagtmanAM. A histological study of tissue response to simulated cleft palate surgery at different ages in beagle dogs. Arch Oral Biol. 1991;36(11):837–843.
57.
WitzelMASalyerKERossRB. Delayed hard palate closure: the philosophy revisited. Cleft Palate J. 1984;21(4):263–269.
58.
YamanishiTNishioJSakoMKoharaHHiranoYYamanishiYAdachiTMiyaSMukaiT. Early two-stage double opposing Z-plasty or one-stage push-back palatoplasty?: comparisons in maxillary development and speech outcome at 4 years of age. Ann Plast Surg. 2011;66(2):148–153.
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.
