KuhnTS. The Structure of Scientific Revolutions. University of Chicago Press; 1962.
2.
HathawayRRLongREJr. Early cleft management: in search of evidence. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop. 2014;145(2):135-141.
3.
SackettDLStrausSERichardsonWS, et al.Evidence-based Medicine. How to Practice and Teach EBM. Churchill Livingstone; 2000.
4.
HornSDGassawayJ. Practice-based evidence study design for comparative effectiveness research. Med Care. 2007;45(10Supl 2):S50-S57.
5.
ShawWCDahlEAsher-McDadeCBrattströmVMarsMMcWilliamJMølstedK PlintDAPrahl-AndersenB RobertsD, et al.A six-center international study of treatment outcome in patients with clefts of the lip and palate. Cleft Palate Craniofacial J, Parts. 1992;29(1–5):393-418.
6.
LongREJrHathawayRRDaskalogiannakisJ,et al.The americleft study: an intercenter study of treatment outcomes for patients with unilateral cleft lip and palate. Part 1 – principles and study design. Cleft Palate-Craniofacial J. 2011;48(3):239-243.
7.
HathawayRRDaskalogiannakisJMercadoAM,et al.The americleft study: an intercenter study of treatment outcomes for patients with unilateral cleft lip and palate. Part 2 – dental arch relationships. Cleft Palate-Craniofacial J. 2011;48(3):244-251.
8.
DaskalogiannakisJMercadoAMRussellKA, et al.The americleft study: an intercenter study of treatment outcomes for patients with unilateral cleft lip and palate. Part 3 – analysis of craniofacial form. Cleft Palate-Craniofacial J. 2011;48(3):252-258.
9.
MercadoAMRussellKAHathawayRR, et al.The americleft study: an intercenter study of treatment outcomes for patients with unilateral cleft lip and palate. Part 4 – nasolabial esthetics. Cleft Palate-Craniofacial J. 2011;48(3):259-264.
10.
RussellKALongREJrHathawayRR, et al.The americleft study: an intercenter study of treatment outcomes for patients with unilateral cleft lip and palate. Part 5 – general discussion and conclusions. Cleft Palate-Craniofacial J. 2011;48(3):265-270.
11.
KimJBStrikePCadierMC. A simple assessment method for auditing multi-centre unilateral cleft lip repairs. J Plast Reconstr Aesthet Surg. 2011;64(2):195-200.
12.
World Health Organization: Global strategies towards reducing the health-care burden of craniofacial anomalies. Report of WHO Meetings on International Collaborative Research on Craniofacial Anomalies. WHO Human Genetics Programme; 2002.
13.
LongREJr. Standardized diagnostic records in cleft and craniofacial orthodontics. In: SheytePGibsonT, eds. Cleft and Craniofacial Orthodontics, Chapter 43. Hoboken, NJ: Wiley Publishing Co;2023:583-592.
LongREJrHallTStaufferL, et al.An intercenter comparison of changes in UCLP dental arch relationship before and 10-years after a change in a center’s treatment protocol. In: Transactions of the 14th International Congress on Cleft Lip/Palate and Related Craniofacial Anomalies, Edinburgh, Scotland, 11–15 July 2022.
RussellKALongREJrDaskalogiannakisJ,et al.A multi-center study using the SWAG scale to compare secondary alveolar bone graft outcomes for patients with cleft lip and palate. Cleft Palate-Craniofacial J. 2016;53(6):180-186.
18.
RussellKALongREJrDaskalogiannakisJ,et al.Reliability of the SWAG – the standardized way to assess grafts method for alveolar bone grafting in patients with cleft lip and palate. Cleft Palate-Craniofacial J. 2017;54(6):680-686.
19.
LongREJrShawWCSembG: Eurocleft and Americleft studies: experiments in intercenter and international collaboration. In: BerkowitzS, ed. Cleft Lip and Palate – Diagnosis and Management, 3rd ed.Berlin: Springer-Verlag; 2013:929-945, Chapter 47.
20.
HathawayRRLongREJrMercadoAM, et al.The Americleft project: use of a standardized outcome measure of dental arch relationships (Goslon) to allow international interstudy comparisons. In: Transactions of the 12th International Congress on Cleft Lip/Palate and Related Craniofacial Anomalies, Orlando, FL, 5-10 May 2013.
21.
DabbaghWLongRHorstM, et al.Long-term changes in CUCLP nasolabial appearance ratings at 5, 8, and 11 years of age without secondary revision surgery. American cleft palate craniofacial association 75th annual meeting abstracts. Cleft Palate Craniofac J. 2018;55(1S):1-123.
22.
PeanchitlertkajornSMercadoAMDaskalogiannakisJJr., et al.An inter-center comparison of dental arch relationships and craniofacial form including a center using nasoalveolar molding. Cleft Palate Craniofacial J. 2018;55(6):655-663.
23.
PeanchitlertkajornSMercadoAMDaskalogiannakisJ Jr., et al.An inter-center comparison of nasolabial esthetics including a center using nasoalveolar molding. Cleft Palate Craniofacial J. 2018;55(6):655-663.
24.
LowryCLongREJrRussellK, et al.The effect of earlier bone grafting, prior to orthodontic treatment, on SWAG ratings of graft outcomes. Cleft Palate-Craniofacial J. 2021;58(2):208-214.
25.
LongREJr. The Americleft Project: comparing treatment outcomes for cleft lip and palate to identify evidence-based practices of importance to the orthodontist. Pract Rev Orthod. 2011.
26.
DaskalogiannakisJLongREJrHathawayRR,et al.The Americleft project: lessons learned from intercener outcome assessments. In: Transactions of the 12th International Congress on Cleft Lip/Palate and Related Craniofacial Anomalies, Orlando, FL, 5–10 May 2013.
27.
RussellKALongREJrDaskalogiannakisJ,et al.The Americleft Project: Alveolar bone graft outcome assessment: History, challenges, and a method developed to overcome these challenges. In: Transactions of the 12th International Congress on Cleft Lip/Palate and Related Craniofacial Anomalies, Orlando, FL, 5–10 May 2013.
28.
DaskalogiannakisJRussellKAMercadoAM, et al.The Americleft Project: Burden of care of various infant orthopedic protocols for improvement of nasolabial aesthetics in patients with CUCLP. In: Transactions of the 12th International Congress on Cleft Lip/Palate and Related Craniofacial Anomalies, Orlando, FL, 5–10 May 2013.
29.
LongREJrMercadoAMDaskalogiannakisJ, et al.The Americleft Project: A modification of Asher-McDade method for rating nasolabial esthetics in patients with CUCLP. In: Transactions of the 12th International Congress on Cleft Lip/Palate and Related Craniofacial Anomalies, Orlando, FL, 5–10 May 2013.
30.
MercadoAMRussellKADaskalogiannakisJ, et al.The Americleft project: a proposed expanded nasolabial appearance yardstick of 5-year old patients with CUCLP. In: Transactions of the 12th International Congress on Cleft Lip/Palate and Related Craniofacial Anomalies, Orlando, FL, 5–10 May 2013.
31.
SitzmanTJMaraCALongREJr, et al.The americleft project: burden of care from secondary surgery in patients with unilateral cleft lip and palate. Plast Reconstr Surg Global Open. 2015;3(7):e442.
32.
BaylisAChapmanKWhitehillT, Americleft Speech Group. Validity and reliability of visual analog scaling for assessment of speech outcomes in children with repaired cleft palate. Cleft Palate-Craniofacial J. 2015;52(6):660-670.
33.
RuppelJKLongREJrOliverDR, et al.The americleft project: a two-center comparison of short and long-term secondary alveolar bone graft outcomes with the SWAG scale. Cleft Palate-Craniofacial J. 2016;53(5):508-515.
34.
ChapmanKLBaylisALTrost-CardamoneJ, et al.The americleft speech project: a training and reliability study. Cleft Palate-Craniofacial J. 2016;53(1):93-108.
35.
MercadoAMRussellKADaskalogiannakisJ,et al.The americleft project: a proposed expanded nasolabial appearance yardstick for 5 year old patients with CUCLP. Cleft Palate-Craniofacial J. 2016;53(1):30-37.
36.
StoutlandALongREJrMercadoA, et al.The americleft project: a modification of asher-McDade method for rating nasolabial esthetics in patients with CUCLP using Q-SORT. J Craniofacial Surg. 2017;28(8):1911-1917.
37.
LongREJrDaskalogiannakisJMercadoAMHathawayRRFesslerJRussellK. The americleft project: plaster dental casts versus digital images for GOSLON yardstick ratings when used in intercenter comparisons. J Craniofacial Surgery. 2017;28(5):1269-1273.
38.
JonesCMRothBMercadoAMJr., et al.Comparison of ratings using 2D vs. 3D images for evaluation of nasolabial appearance in patients with CUCLP. J Craniofacial Surgery. 2018;29(1):105-108.
39.
KornbluthMDaskalogiannakisJRussellKAJr., et al.The americleft project: a comparison of dental arch relationship among five centers using distinct types of presurgical orthodpedics. Cleft Palate Craniofacial J. 2018;55(5):639-648.
40.
SitzmanTJAlloriACMaticDB,et al.The americleft task force surgeon subgroup. Reliability of oronasal fistula classification. Cleft Palate Craniofacial J. 2018;55(6):871-875.
41.
SingerEDaskalogiannakisJRussellKA, et al.Burden of care of various infant orthopedic protocols for improvement of nasolabial aesthetics in patients with CUCLP. Cleft Palate Craniofacial J. 2018;55(9):1236-1243.
42.
DoucetJCRussellKADaskalogiannakisJJr., et al.Facial growth of patients with complete unilateral cleft lip and palate treated with alveolar bone grafting at 6 years. Cleft Palate-Craniofacial J. 2019;56(5):619-627.
43.
DoucetJCRussellKADaskalogiannakisJJr., et al.Early secondary alveolar bone grafting and facial growth of patients with complete unilateral cleft lip and palate. Cleft Palate-Craniofacial J. 2022;59(6):1-8.
44.
PetermanJBBrissDLongREJr. A comparison of bone graft ratings using 2D vs 3D images. Submitted for publication, Cleft Palate-Craniofacial J. 2022;59.
45.
HathawayRRLongREJr. The americleft project: a roadmap for audits, quality assurance, and improvement in cleft care through comparative effectiveness research using practice-based evidence. In: Submitted for Publication, Proceedings of 59th Moyers Symposium (2023), Craniofacial Growth Series, Center for Human Growth and Development, The University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, MI.
