To examine skeletal morphology and dental arch relationships at 8 years of age following early 2-stage palatoplasty, which consists of soft palate plasty at 1 year of age and hard palate closure at 1.5 years of age, and to compare the results with those of conventional pushback palatoplasty.
Design
Retrospective.
Setting
Single institutional study.
Patients
Eighty-six patients with nonsyndromic complete unilateral cleft lip and palate (UCLP) were selected.
Intervention
The subjects were divided into 2 groups according to the palatoplasty protocols, as follows: 45 patients, who underwent early 2-stage palatoplasty (ETS group), and 41 patients, who underwent 1-stage pushback palatoplasty (PB group).
Main Outcome Measures
Skeletal morphology was assessed using lateral cephalometric analysis, and dental arch relationships were examined using the GOSLON yardstick.
Results
Cephalometric analysis revealed that the anterior-posterior length of the maxilla, measured by PTM-A and PTM-ANS, both projected to the nasal floor (NF) plane, was longer in the ETS group than in the PB group (PTM-A/NF, p = .04; PTM-ANS/NF, p = .03, unpaired t-test), although no significant difference was observed in SNA (p = .09, unpaired t-test). Upper posterior facial height was shorter in the ETS group than in the PB group (p = .02, unpaired t). Assessments with the GOSLON yardstick showed that the ETS group presented better dental arch relationships than the PB group (p = 0.04, Mann–Whitney's U-test).
Conclusions
The present results suggested that the ETS protocol reduced the negative effects of palatal surgery on facial development and dental arch relationships in patients with complete UCLP at 8 years of age.
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.
2.
GundlachKKBardachJFilippowDStahl-de CastrillonFLenzJH. Two-stage palatoplasty, is it still a valuable treatment protocol for patients with a cleft of lip, alveolus, and palate?J Craniomaxillofac Surg. 2013;41(1):62-70.
3.
SchweckendiekW. Primary veloplasty: long-term results without maxillary deformity. A twenty-five year report. Cleft Palate J. 1978;15(3):268-274.
4.
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.
5.
FriedeHEnemarkH. Long-term evidence for favorable midfacial growth after delayed hard palate repair in UCLP patients. Cleft Palate Craniofac J.2001;38(4):323-329.
6.
NishioJYamanishiTKoharaH,et al.Early two-stage palatoplasty using modified Furlow's veloplasty. Cleft Palate Craniofac J. 2010;47(1):1597-1608.
7.
KitagawaTKoharaHSohmuraT,et al.Dentoalveolar growth of patients with complete unilateral cleft lip and plate by early two-stage Furlow and push-back method: preliminary results. Cleft Palate Craniofac J. 2004;41(5):519-525.
8.
YamanishiTNishioJKoharaH,et al.Effect on maxillary arch development of early 2-stage palatoplasty by modified furlow technique and conventional 1-stage palatoplasty in children with complete unilateral cleft lip and palate. J Oral Maxillofac Surg. 2009;67(10):2210-2216.
9.
KatoJMikoyaTItoY, et al.Dental arch relationship outcomes following 2-stage palatoplasty for Japanese patients with complete unilateral cleft lip and palate: a 3-center study. Cleft Palate Craniofac J. 2022;59(3):355-364.
10.
YamanishiTNishioJSakoM, et al.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.
11.
TomeWYashiroKOtsukiKKogoMYamashiroT. Influence of different palatoplasties on the facial morphology of early mixed dentition stage children with unilateral cleft lip and palate. Cleft Palate Craniofac J. 2016;53(2):e28-e33.
12.
MarsMPlintDAHoustonWJBerglandOSembG. The Goslon yardstick: a new system of assessing dental arch relationships in children with unilateral clefts of the lip and palate. Cleft Palate J. 1987;24(4):314-322.
13.
HotzMM. Pre- and early postoperative growth-guidance in cleft lip and palate cases by maxillary orthopedics (an alternative procedure to primary bone-grafting). Cleft Palate J. 1969;6:368-372.
14.
CroninTD. A modification of the Tennison-type lip repair. Cleft Palate J. 1966;3:376-382.
15.
RandallPLaRossaDSolomonMCohenM. Experience with the Furlow double-reversing Z-plasty for cleft palate repair. Plast Reconstr Surg. 1986;77(4):569-576.
WardillWEM. The technique of operation for cleft palate. Br J Surg. 1937;25(97):117-130.
18.
AltalibiMSaltajiHEdwardsRMajorPWFlores-MirC. Indices to assess malocclusions in patients with cleft lip and palate. Eur J Orthod. 2013;35(6):772-782.
19.
LongREJrDaskalogiannakisJMercadoAMHathawayRRFesslerJRussellKA. The Americleft project: plaster dental casts versus digital images for GOSLON yardstick ratings when used in intercenter comparisons. J Craniofac Surg. 2017;28(5):1269-1273.
20.
LandisJRKochGG. The measurement of observer agreement for categorical data. Biometrics. 1977;33(1):159-174.
21.
GilliesHDKelsey FryW. A new principle in the surgical treatment of “congenital cleft palate,” and its mechanical counterpart. Br Med J. 1921;5;1(3140):335-338.
22.
BardachJMorrisHLOlinWH. Late results of primary veloplasty: the Marburg project. Plast Reconstr Surg. 1984;73(2):207-218.
23.
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.
24.
LiaoYFYangIYWangRYunCHuangCS. Two-stage palate repair with delayed hard palate closure is related to favorable maxillary growth in unilateral cleft lip and palate. Plast Reconstr Surg. 2010;125(5):1503-1510.
25.
AlamMKIidaJSatoYKajiiTS. Postnatal treatment factors affecting craniofacial morphology of unilateral cleft lip and palate (UCLP) patients in a Japanese population. Br J Oral Maxillofac Surg. 2013;51(8):e205-e210.
26.
FudalejPSWegrodzkaESembGHortis-DzierzbickaM. One-stage (Warsaw) and two-stage (Oslo) repair of unilateral cleft lip and palate: craniofacial outcomes. J Craniomaxillofac Surg. 2015;43(7):1224-1231.
CorboMDujardinTde MaertelaerVMalevezCGlineurR. Dentocraniofacial morphology of 21 patients with unilateral cleft lip and palate: a cephalometric study. Cleft Palate Craniofac J. 2005;42(6):618-624.
29.
KappenIFPMBittermannGKPSchoutenRM, et al.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 Investig. 2017;21(5):1801-1810.
30.
HollandSGabbayJSHellerJB,et al.Delayed closure of the hard palate leads to speech problems and deleterious maxillary growth. Plast Reconstr Surg. 2007;119(4):1302-1310.
31.
CosmanBFalkAS. Delayed hard palate repair and speech deficiencies: a cautionary report. Cleft Palate J. 1980;17(1):27-33.
32.
WitzelMASalyerKERossRB. Delayed hard palate closure: the philosophy revisited. Cleft Palate J. 1984;21(4):263-269.
33.
SeyferAESimonCD. Long-term results following the repair of palatal clefts: a comparison of three different techniques. Plast Reconstr Surg. 1989;83(5):785-790.
34.
HeliövaaraARantaR. One-stage closure of isolated cleft palate with the Veau-Wardill-Kilner V-Y push-back method or the Cronin modification. Cephalometric comparison of nasopharynx. Int J Oral Maxillofac Surg. 1993;22(5):267-271.
35.
ImaokaKKuitaKMaedaM,et al.Clinical evaluation 3 years after modified unified velopharyngoplasty in patients with cleft palate and congenital velopharyngeal insufficiency. J Oral and Maxillofac Surg Med Pathol. 2021;33(4):394-401.
36.
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.
37.
RossRB. Treatment variables affecting facial growth in complete unilateral cleft lip and palate. Cleft Palate J. 1987;24(1):5-77.
38.
FriedeHPerssonECLiljaJ, et al. Maxillary dental arch and occlusion in patients with repaired clefts of the secondary palate. Influence of push back palatal surgery. Scand J Plast Reconstr Surg Hand Surg. 1993;27(4):297-305.
39.
SembGShawWC. Facial growth after different methods of surgical intervention in patients with cleft lip and palate. Acta Odontol Scand. 1998;56(6):352-355.
40.
MukaiKKuritaKAbeANakayamaAGotoMMukaiY. Results of palatoplasty using a mucosal flap in isolated cleft palate at our department: maxillofacial growth and velopharyngeal closure at 6 years of age. J Oral and Maxillofac Surg Med Pathol. 2021;33(1):53-59.
41.
MommaertsMYKablanFShethSLasterZ. Early maxillary growth in complete cleft lip, alveolus and palate patients following Widmaier-Perko’s, or a modified Furlow's technique of soft palate repair. J Craniomaxillofac Surg. 2003;31(4):209-214.
42.
CuttingCRosenbaumJRovatiL. The technique of muscle repair in the cleft soft palate. Oper Tech Plast Reconstr Surg. 1995;2(4):215-222.
43.
SommerladBC. A technique for cleft palate repair. Plast Reconstr Surg. 2003;112(6):1542-1548.
44.
PegelowMRizellSKarstenA, et al.Reliability and predictive validity of dental arch relationships using the 5-year-olds’ index and the GOSLON yardstick to determine facial growth. Cleft Palate Craniofac J. 2021;58(5):619-627.
45.
MølstedKBrattströmVPrahl-AndersenBShawWCSembG. The Eurocleft study: intercenter study of treatment outcome in patients with complete cleft lip and palate. Part 3: dental arch relationships. Cleft Palate Craniofac J. 2005;42(1):78-82.
46.
HathawayRDaskalogiannakisJMercadoA,et al.The Americleft study: an inter-center study of treatment outcomes for patients with unilateral cleft lip and palate part 2. Dental arch relationships. Cleft Palate Craniofac J. 2011;48(3):244-251.
47.
KimTIshikawaHChuSHandaAIidaJYoshidaS. Constriction of the maxillary dental arch by mucoperiosteal denudation of the palate. Cleft Palate Craniofac J. 2002;39(4):425-431.
48.
SusamiTOgiharaYMatsuzakiM,et al.Assessment of dental arch relationships in Japanese patients with unilateral cleft lip and palate. Cleft Palate Craniofac J. 2006;43(1):96-102.
49.
OkazakiMYokozekiMMikiY, et al. Evaluation for malocclusion of 37 Japanese patients with unilateral cleft lip and palate by Goslon yardstick [in Japanese with English abstract]. J Jpn Cleft Palate Assoc. 2002;27(1):47-57.
50.
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.
51.
AtackNHathornIMarsMSandyJ. Study models of 5 year old children as predictors of surgical outcome in unilateral cleft lip and palate. Eur J Orthod. 1997;19(2):165−170.
