Bite Force Changes in Bilateral Cleft Lip and Palate Patients Before and After ALT-RAMEC Protocol

Abstract

Objectives

To evaluate the bite force (BF) changes in bilateral cleft lip and palate (BCLP) in contrast to the non BCLP children after ALT-RAMEC Facemask therapy.

Methods

The prospective study was carried out on a total of 60 subjects of age 6 to 13 years in a tertiary care hospital; treatment group, 30 children with BCLP and control group, 30 children without cleft lip and palate. Each cleft patient was received ALT-RAMEC Facemask treatment and their BF assessed at 4 different stages. Bite force taken before treatment, immediately, 3 months and 6 months after treatment. Bite force of the control group was taken at baseline to compare with the treatment group to demonstrate the difference in BF values. Independent t test and analysis of variance were used to perform statistical analysis.

Results

There was a significant difference in BF between the treatment group (BCLP) 122.53 ± 8.64 N and the control group (non BCLP) 181.38 ± 18.84 N at baseline. After the Alt RAMEC protocol, changes in BF recorded over 3 and 6 months of therapy showed significant improvement. The mean values of BF at 3months and 6 months were 106.7 ± 9.3 N and 137.4 ± 9.5 N, respectively.

Conclusion

Bite force was significantly improved after ALT-RAMEC protocol followed by facemask therapy in BCLP patients.

Keywords

bite force BCLP ALT-RAMEC facemask

Get full access to this article

View all access options for this article.

References

Büyükçavuş

. Alternate rapid maxillary expansion and constriction (Alt-RAMEC) protocol: a comprehensive literature review. Turk J Orthod. 2019;32(1):47.

Chida

Yoshida

Momma

Kochi

Mayanagi

Fukumoto

. Comparison of occlusal function in children with and without cleft lip and/or palate. Pediatr Dent J. 2008;18(2):131-136.

Çörekçi

Göyenç

. Dentofacial changes from fan-type rapid maxillary expansion vs traditional rapid maxillary expansion in early mixed dentition: a prospective clinical trial. Angle Orthod. 2013;83(5):842-850.

Dmitrienko

Porfiriadis

Domenyuk

. Dentoalveolar specifics in children with cleft palate during primary occlusion period. Archiv Euromedica. 2018;8(1):33-34.

Dogan

Seckin

. Maxillary protraction in patients with unilateral cleft lip and palate: evaluation of soft and hard tissues using the Alt-RAMEC protocol. J Orofac Orthop. 2020;81(3):209-219.

Fudalej

Obloj

Miller-Drabikowska

Samarcew-Krawczak

Dudkiewicz

. Midfacial growth in a consecutive series of preadolescent children with complete unilateral cleft lip and palate following a one-stage simultaneous repair. Cleft Palate Craniofac J. 2008;45(6):667-673.

Gopalakrishnan

Sridhar

. Assessment of the dental and skeletal effects of fan-type rapid maxillary expansion screw and Hyrax screw on craniofacial structures. Contemp Clin Dent. 2017;8(1).

. Growth modification of the face: a current perspective with emphasis on class III treatment. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop. 2015;148(1).

Lee

N-K

Yang

I-H

Baek

S-H

. The short-term treatment effects of face mask therapy in class III patients based on the anchorage device: miniplates vs rapid maxillary expansion: miniplates vs rapid maxillary expansion. Angle Orthod. 2012;82(5):846-852.

10.

Liou

EJ-W

Tsai

W-C

. A new protocol for maxillary protraction in cleft patients: repetitive weekly protocol of alternate rapid maxillary expansions and constrictions. Cleft Palate Craniofac J. 2005;42(2):121-127.

11.

Liu

Zhou

Wang

Liu

Zhou

. Effect of maxillary protraction with alternating rapid palatal expansion and constriction vs expansion alone in maxillary retrusive patients: a single-center, randomized controlled trial. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop. 2015;148(4):641-651.

12.

Meazzini

Zappia

Tortora

Autelitano

Tintinelli

. Short-and long-term effects of late maxillary advancement with the Liou-Alt-RAMEC protocol in unilateral cleft lip and palate. Cleft Palate Craniofac J. 2019;56(2):159-167.

13.

Montes

ABM

de Oliveira

Gavião

MBD

de Souza Barbosa

. Occlusal, chewing, and tasting characteristics associated with orofacial dysfunctions in children with unilateral cleft lip and palate: a case-control study. Clin Oral Investig. 2018;22(2):941-950.

14.

Baek

S-H

Choi

J-Y

. Effect of long-term use of facemask with miniplate on maxillary protraction in patients with cleft lip and palate. J Craniofac Surg. 2018;29(2):309-314.

15.

Peterson-Falzone

Trost-Cardamone

Karnell

Hardin-Jones

. The Clinician’s Guide to Treating Cleft Palate Speech-E-Book. Elsevier Health Sciences; 2016.

16.

Quo

Pliska

Huynh

. Oropharyngeal growth and skeletal malformations. In: Principles and Practice of Sleep Medicine. Elsevier; 2017:1401-1422.e7.

17.

Ruscello

Vallino

. The use of nonspeech oral motor exercises in the treatment of children with cleft palate: a re-examination of available evidence. Am J Speech Lang Pathol. 2020;29(4):1811-1820.

18.

Sonnesen

Bakke

. Bite force in children with unilateral crossbite before and after orthodontic treatment. A prospective longitudinal study. Eur J Orthod. 2007;29(3):310-313.

19.

Sonnesen

Bakke

Solow

. Bite force in pre-orthodontic children with unilateral crossbite. Eur J Orthod. 2001;23(6):741-749.

20.

Wang

Y-C

Chang

PMS

Liou

EJ-W

. Opening of circumaxillary sutures by alternate rapid maxillary expansions and constrictions. Angle Orthod. 2009;79(2):230-234.

21.

Zeraatkar

Ajami

Nadjmi

Faghihi

Golkari

. A qualitative study of children’s quality of life in the context of living with cleft lip and palate. Pediatric Health Med Ther. 2019;10:13-20.

22.

Zhang

H-C

Zhang

. The effects of maxillary protraction with or without rapid maxillary expansion and age factors in treating class III malocclusion: a meta-analysis. PLoS One. 2015;10(6):e0130096.

23.

Zhang

Jia

Huang

Wang

Guo

Shen

. Dentoskeletal effects of facemask therapy in skeletal class III cleft patients with or without bone graft. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop. 2018;153(4):542-549.

24.

Zhao

Hua

. Alternate rapid maxillary expansion and constriction (Alt-RAMEC) may be more effective than rapid maxillary expansion alone for protraction facial mask treatment. J Evid Based Dent Pract. 2020;20(2):101408.