To evaluate and compare the dental arch symmetry of individuals with and without cleft lip and palate after orthodontic/rehabilitation treatment.
Design
Cross-sectional study.
Setting
Tertiary cleft center in Brazil.
Patients
Fifty-five participants aged between 18 and 30 years were divided into 3 groups according to treatment. Patients that received either a fixed partial denture (FPD) or implant-supported crown (ISC) in the cleft area or only orthodontic treatment, noncleft patients (NC).
Interventions
An analysis was performed using digitized dental casts scanned by laser and software. The following linear measurements were evaluated: incisor-canine; canine-molar; incisor-molar; surface and volume of the palatal region.
Main Outcome Measure
Three-way ANOVA was used to compare the study factors: group (FPD/ISC/NC) and side (right/left) followed by the Tukey test to verify their interaction (α = .05).
Results
The results showed statistically significant differences among groups for the maxillary linear measurements canine-molar and incisor-molar, but not for incisor-canine. No statistically significant differences were found regarding the side for the maxillary measurements, while the factor interaction showed similarity only for incisor-canine. The mandibular measurements showed no statistical differences among groups, sides, or factor interactions. In surface and volume, all values in patients with cleft presented lesser than in without cleft patients.
Conclusion
Regardless of the rehabilitation, arch symmetry can be achieved in the incisor-canine dimension in the cleft area.
FreitasJAAlmeidaALSoaresS, et al.Rehabilitative treatment of cleft lip and palate: experience of the hospital for rehabilitation of craniofacial anomalies/USP (HRAC/USP)—part 4: oral rehabilitation. J Appl Oral Sci. 2013;21(3):284-292. doi:10.1590/1679-775720130127
2.
MølstedKDahlE. Asymmetry of the maxilla in children with complete unilateral cleft lip and palate [published correction appears in Cleft Palate J 1990;27(4):444]. Cleft Palate J. 1990;27(2):184-192. doi:10.1597/1545-1569(1990)027. <0184:aotmic>2.3.co;2.
3.
PreciousDSDelaireJ. Clinical observations of cleft lip and palate. Oral Surg Oral Med Oral Pathol. 1993;75(2):141-151. doi:10.1016/0030-4220(93)90084-h
4.
ChenZPanXZhaoNChenZShenG. Asymmetric maxillary protraction for unilateral cleft lip and palate patients using finite element analysis. J Craniofac Surg. 2015;26(2):388-392. doi:10.1097/SCS.0000000000001337
5.
ParkYHParkSBaekSH. Alignment strategy for constricted maxillary dental arch in patients with unilateral cleft lip and palate using fixed orthodontic appliance. J Craniofac Surg. 2018;29(2):264-269. doi:10.1097/SCS.0000000000004091
6.
MutinelliS. Symmetry evaluation in the dental arch: the IXS index. Prog Orthod. 2006;7(2):244-251.
7.
PucciarelliMGRToyoshimaGHCardosoJFde OliveiraTMNeppelenbroekKHSoaresS. Arch asymmetry in patients with cleft lip and palate after rehabilitation treatment using stereophotogrammetry. J Craniofac Surg. 2021;32(5):e501-e504. doi:10.1097/SCS.0000000000007460
8.
FreitasJAGaribDGOliveiraM, et al.Rehabilitative treatment of cleft lip and palate: experience of the Hospital for Rehabilitation of Craniofacial Anomalies-USP (HRAC-USP)—part 2: pediatric dentistry and orthodontics. J Appl Oral Sci. 2012;20(2):268-281. doi:10.1590/s1678-77572012000200024
9.
SoaresSRezende PucciarelliMGHideki de Lima ToyoshimaGMarchini OliveiraT. Stereophotogrammetry to evaluate young adults with and without cleft lip and palate after orthodontic and restorative treatment. J Prosthet Dent.2021;S0022-3913(20):30733-2. doi:10.1016/j.prosdent.2020.10.025. [published online ahead of print, February 12, 2021].
10.
ŠkrinjarićAŠlajMŠlajM. Fluctuating dental arch asymmetry in different malocclusion groups. Acta Stomatol Croat. 2018;52(2):105-113. doi:10.15644/asc52/2/3
11.
CaballeroJTPucciarelliMGRPazmiñoVFC, et al.3D comparison of dental arch stability in patients with and without cleft lip and palate after orthodontic/rehabilitative treatment. J Appl Oral Sci. 2019;27:e20180434. doi:10.1590/1678-7757-2018-0434 [Published June 13, 2019].
12.
Rezende PucciarelliMGde Lima ToyoshimaGHMarchini OliveiraTMarques HonórioHSforzaCSoaresS. Assessment of dental arch stability after orthodontic treatment and oral rehabilitation in complete unilateral cleft lip and palate and non-clefts patients using 3D stereophotogrammetry. BMC Oral Health. 2020;20(1):154. Published May 27, 2020. doi:10.1186/s12903-020-01143-1
13.
FaçanhaAJLaraTSGaribDGda Silva FilhoOG. Transverse effect of Haas and Hyrax appliances on the upper dental arch in patients with unilateral complete cleft lip and palate: a comparative study. Dental Press J Orthod. 2014;19(2):39-45. doi:10.1590/2176-9451.19.2.039-045.oar
DahlbergG. Statistical Methods for Medical and Biological Students. George Allen and Urwin; 1940. p. 358.
16.
LiljaJMarsMElanderA, et al.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. doi:10.1597/05-069
17.
SforzaCDe MenezesMBrescianiE, et al.Evaluation of a 3D stereophotogrammetric technique to measure the stone casts of patients with unilateral cleft lip and palate. Cleft Palate Craniofac J. 2012;49(4):477-483. doi:10.1597/10-207
18.
Huanca GhislanzoniLTLinebergerMCevidanesLHMapelliASforzaCMcNamaraJAJr.Evaluation of tip and torque on virtual study models: a validation study. Prog Orthod. 2013;14:19. Published July 26, 2013. doi:10.1186/2196-1042-14-19
19.
UgoliniACerrutoCDi VeceL, et al.Dental arch response to Haas-type rapid maxillary expansion anchored to deciduous vs permanent molars: a multicentric randomized controlled trial. Angle Orthod. 2015;85(4):570-576. doi:10.2319/041114-269.1
20.
De MenezesMCerón-ZapataAMLópez-PalacioAMMapelliAPisoniLSforzaC. 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. doi:10.1597/14-076
21.
LundströmA. Some asymmetries of the dental arches, jaws, and skull, and their etiological significance. Am J Orthod. 1961;47(2):81-106.
22.
SarverDM. Interactions of hard tissues, soft tissues, and growth over time, and their impact on orthodontic diagnosis and treatment planning. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop. 2015;148(3):380-386. doi:10.1016/j.ajodo.2015.04.030
23.
DindaroğluFDuranGSDoğanS. Dental crown symmetry in unilateral cleft lip and palate patients: a three-dimensional analysis on digital dental models. Orthod Craniofac Res. 2019;22(4):281-288. doi:10.1111/ocr.12330
24.
RuskováHBejdováŠPeterkaMKrajíčekVVelemínskáJ. 3-D Shape analysis of palatal surface in patients with unilateral complete cleft lip and palate. J Craniomaxillofac Surg. 2014;42(5):e140-e147. DOI: 10.1016/j.jcms.2013.07.011
ŠmahelZTrefnýPFormánekPMüllerováŽPeterkaM. Three-dimensional morphology of the palate in subjects with unilateral complete cleft lip and palate at the stage of permanent dentition. Cleft Palate Craniofac J. 2004;41(4):416-423. DOI: 10.1597/03-053.1
27.
LoLJWongFHChenYRLinWYWen-Ching KoEKirschnerRE. Palatal surface area measurement: comparisons among different cleft types. Ann Plast Surg. 2003;50(1):18-23; discussion 23-4.
28.
HuangCSWangWIJein-Wein LiouEChenYRKao-Ting ChenPNoordhoffMS. Effects of cheiloplasty on maxillary dental arch development in infants with unilateral complete cleft lip and palate. Cleft Palate Craniofac J. 2002;39(5):513-516. DOI:10.1597/15451569_2002_039_0513_eocomd_2.0.co_2
