Assess cephalometric parameters and the need for orthognathic surgery (OS) and its relationship with compliance in protraction headgear (PHG).
Design
Retrospective case series.
Setting
Hospital cleft-craniofacial center.
Patients
23 patients with nonsyndromic cleft lip and palate and history of lip and palate repair.
Interventions:
Patients received PHG and orthodontic treatment. Compliant patients were compared to patients that were not. Protraction was applied with 170-gram elastics and patients were instructed to wear for at least 12 hours daily.
Main outcome measures
Cephalometric measurements at initial (T1), post-PHG (T2), and pre-surgical or post-orthodontic treatment (T3) of at least age 15 for females and 17 for males and the presence of OS were compared.
Results
83% (19) of patients reported compliance with therapy. Of those compliant, 68% (13) had OS and 32% (6) did not (P = .99). Inter-group comparisons at T1 between compliant and noncompliant showed no significant differences and the non-OS patients started with larger nasolabial angles (P < .05). At T2, there were no significant cephalometric differences between groups. At T3, compliant patients showed significantly more upper incisor proclination than noncompliant patients. Between OS and non-OS, OS patients had significantly decreased ANB, Wits, convexity, overjet, and FMA and larger nasolabial angles (P < .05).
Conclusions
Patients compliant with PHG showed no difference in the need for OS. However, after orthodontic treatment, compliant patients showed more upper incisor proclination and OS patients with decreased ANB, Wits, convexity, overjet, FMA, and larger nasolabial angles.
RossRB. Treatment variables affecting facial growth in complete unilateral cleft lip and palate. Part 1–7. CPCJ. 1987;24(1):5‐77.
2.
RossRB. The clinical implications of facial growth in cleft lip and palate. CPCJ. 1970;7(1):37‐47.
3.
HanBJSuzukiA, Tashiro H.Longitudinal study of craniofacial growth in subjects with cleft lip and palate: from cheiloplasty to 8 years of age. CPCJ. 1995;32(2):156‐166.
4.
ShetyePR. Facial growth of adults with unoperated clefts. Clin Plast Surg. 2004;31(2):361‐371.
5.
LiaoYFMarsM. Long-term effects of palate repair on craniofacial morphology in patients with unilateral cleft lip and palate. CPCJ. 2005;42(6):594‐600.
6.
NaqviZAShivalingaBM, Ravi S, Munawwar SS.Effect of cleft lip palate repair on craniofacial growth. J Orthod Sci. 2015;4(3):59‐64.
7.
RussellKLongREJr, Hathaway R, et al.The Americleft study: an inter-center study of treatment outcomes for patients with unilateral cleft lip and palate. Part 5. General discussion and conclusions. CPCJ. 2011;48(3):265‐270.
8.
SusamiTOkayasuM, Inokuchi T, et al.Maxillary protraction in patients with cleft lip and palate in mixed dentition: cephalometric evaluation after completion of growth. CPCJ. 2014;51(5):514‐524.
9.
ShiBLoseeJE. The impact of cleft lip and palate repair on maxillofacial growth. Int J Oral Sci. 2015;7(1):14‐17.
10.
SembGBrattstromV, Mølsted K, Prahl-Andersen B, Shaw WC.The Eurocleft study: intercenter study of treatment outcome in patients with complete cleft lip and palate. Part 4: relationship among treatment outcome, patient/parent satisfaction, and the burden of care. CPCJ. 2005;42(1):83‐92.
11.
MarsMHoustonWJ. A preliminary study of facial growth and morphology in unoperated male unilateral cleft lip and palate subjects over 13 years of age. CPCJ. 1990;27(1):7‐10.
12.
FilhoLCNormandoAD, da Silva Filho OG.Isolated influences of lip and palate surgery on facial growth: comparison of operated and unoperated male adults with UCLP. CPCJ. 1996;33(1):51‐56.
WestwoodPVMcNamaraJAJr, Baccetti T, Franchi L, Sarver DM.Long-term effects of class III treatment with rapid maxillary expansion and facemask therapy followed by fixed appliances. AJODO. 2003;123(3):306‐320.
15.
KimJHVianaMA, Graber TM, Omerza FF, BeGole EA.The effectiveness of protraction face mask therapy: a meta-analysis. AJODO. 1999;115(6):675‐685.
16.
CordascoGMatareseG, Rustico L, et al.Efficacy of orthopedic treatment with protraction facemask on skeletal class III malocclusion: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Orthod Craniofac Res. 2014;17(3):133‐143.
17.
FoerschMJacobsC, Wriedt S, Hechtner M, Wehrbein H.Effectiveness of maxillary protraction using facemask with or without maxillary expansion: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Clin. Oral Investig. 2015;19(6):181‐1192.
18.
MandallNCousleyR, DiBiase A, et al.Early class III protraction facemask treatment reduces the need for orthognathic surgery: a multi-centre, two-arm parallel randomized, controlled trial. J Orthod. 2016;43(3):164‐175.
19.
BaccettiTFranchiL, McNamara JA Jr.Cephalometric variables predicting the long-term success or failure of combined rapid maxillary expansion and facial mask therapy. AJODO. 2004;126(1):16‐22.
DoganS. The effects of face mask therapy in cleft lip and palate patients. Ann Maxillofac Surg. 2012;2(2):116‐120.
22.
KobayashiSHirakawaT, Fukawa T, Maegawa J.Maxillary growth after the use of protraction head gear in conjunction with presurgical orthopedics and gingivoperioplasty for complete bilateral cleft lip and alveolus patients. J Craniofac Surg. 2013;24(5):1679‐1684.
23.
HoefertCSBacherM, Herberts T, Krimmel M, Reinert S, Göz G.3D soft tissue changes in facial morphology in patients with cleft lip and palate and class III malocclusion under therapy with rapid maxillary expansion and delaire facemask. J Orofac Orthop. 2010;71(2):136‐151.
24.
DelaireJ. Maxillary development revisited: relevance to orthopaedic treatment of class III malocclusions. EJO. 1997;19(3):289‐311.
25.
FriedeHLennartssonB. Forward traction of the maxilla in cleft lip and palate patients. EJO. 1981;3(1):21‐39.
26.
TindlundRSRyghP, Bøe OE.Orthopedic protraction of the upper jaw in cleft lip and palate patients during the deciduous and mixed dentition periods in comparison with normal growth and development. CPCJ. 1993;30(2):182‐194.
27.
NardoniDNSiqueiraDF, de Almeida Cardoso M, Filho LC.Cephalometric variables used to predict the success of interceptive treatment with rapid maxillary expansion and face mask. A longitudinal study. Dental Press J Orthod. 2015;20(1):85‐96.
28.
PalikarakiGMakrygiannakisMA, Zafeiriadis AA, et al.The effect of facemask in patients with unilateral cleft lip and palate: a systematic review and meta-analysis. EJO. 2021;43(1):69‐79.
29.
BjorkASkiellerV. Facial development and tooth eruption. An implant study at the age of puberty. AJO. 1972;62(4):339‐383.
30.
YenSL. Protocols for late maxillary protraction in cleft lip and palate patients at children’s hospital of Los Angeles. Semin Orthod. 2011;17(2):138‐148.
31.
FacoRYatabeM, Cevidanes LH, Timmerman H, de Clerck HJ, Garib D.Bone-anchored maxillary protraction in unilateral cleft lip and palate: a cephalometric appraisal. EJO. 2019;41(5):537‐543.
32.
RenYSteegmanR, Dieters A, Jansma J, Stamatakis H.Bone-anchored maxillary protraction in patients with unilateral complete cleft lip and palate and class III malocclusion. Clin Oral Investig. 2019;23(5):2529‐2441.
33.
HaasAJ. Palatal expansion: just the beginning of dentofacial orthopedics. AJO. 1970;57(3):219‐255.
34.
LiouEJTsaiWC. A new protocol for maxillary protraction in cleft patients: repetitive weekly protocol of alternate rapid maxillary expansions and constrictions. CPCJ. 2005;42(2):121‐127.
35.
LiuWZhouY, Wang X, Liu D, Zhou S.Effect of maxillary protraction with alternating rapid palatal expansion and constriction vs expansion alone in maxillary retrusive patients: a single-center, randomized controlled trial. AJODO. 2015;148(4):641‐651.
36.
GraberTM. Problems and limitations of cephalometric analysis in orthodontics. JADA. 1956;53(4):439‐454.
