To compare the differences of facial aesthetic evaluation between patients with Cleft Lip and/or Palate (CL/P) and professionals for the treatment outcome of CL/P.
Design
This systematic review was conducted on MedLine, Web of Science, Embase and Cochrane Library databases. The Risk of Bias in Non-randomized Studies of Intervention (ROBINS-I) tool was used to evaluate the included researches.
Setting
Not applicable.
Patients, Participants
Patients with CL/P and professionals
Interventions
Not applicable.
Main Outcome Measures
The facial aesthetic evaluation of patients with CL/P and professionals.
Results
Among the 1695 literatures retrieved, 22 articles were included, including 974 patients with CL/P and 251 professionals. The bias risk assessment on 21 articles was rated “Moderate” and only one article was rated “Serious”. Due to the high heterogeneity of the included studies, meta-analysis was not possible, so descriptive analysis was conducted. Among the included studies, two articles indicated similar views from both groups, 19 noted differences between the two groups, of which three articles indicated more positive evaluation by professionals and nine articles indicated more positive evaluation by patients.
Conclusions
The available data indicate that there is a difference between patients with CL/P and professionals in the aesthetic evaluation, but it is not clear which group is more positive. During the treatment of patients with CL/P, apart from the objective aesthetic evaluation, professionals should fully consider subjective ideas and self-assessment of patients, in order to improve the quality of life for patients.
MosseyPAModellB. Epidemiology of oral clefts 2012: An international perspective. Front Oral Biol. 2012;16:1-18. doi:https://doi.org/10.1159/000337464
2.
SilvaMdBalderramaIdFWobetoAPWerneckRIAzevedo-AlanisLR. The impact of nonsyndromic cleft lip with or without cleft palate on oral health-related quality of life. J Appl Oral Sci. 2018;26(0):e20170145. doi:https://doi.org/10.1590/1678-7757-2017-0145
3.
ArdouinKHareJStockNM. Emotional well-being in adults born with cleft lip and/or palate: A whole of life survey in the United Kingdom. Cleft Palate-Craniofacial J. 2020;57(7):877-885. doi:https://doi.org/10.1177/1055665619896681
4.
ConnollyKAKurnikNMTruongTA,et al.Long-Term outcomes for adult patients with cleft lip and palate. J Craniofacial Surg. 2019;30(7):2048-2051. doi:https://doi.org/10.1097/scs.0000000000005932
5.
RamstadTOttemEShawWC. Psychosocial adjustment in Norwegian adults who had undergone standardised treatment of complete cleft lip and palate II. Self-reported problems and concerns with appearance. Scand J Plast Reconstr Surg Hand Surg. 1995;29(4):329-336. doi:https://doi.org/10.3109/02844319509008968
6.
ZulaufCSpinelliTRosenbergJ. Advocating for the child: The role of pediatric psychology for children with cleft lip and/or palate. Plast Surg Nurs: Off J Am Soc Plast Reconstr Surg Nurses. 2018;38(3):114-120. doi:https://doi.org/10.1097/psn.0000000000000232
7.
Lorot-MarchandAGuerreschiPPellerinP, et al.Frequency and socio-psychological impact of taunting in school-age patients with cleft lip-palate surgical repair. Int J Pediatr Otorhinolaryngol. 2015;79(7):1041-1048. doi:https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijporl.2015.04.024
8.
KeijserKNowinskiDManiM. Photographic measurements partially correlate to nasal function and appearance among adult cleft patients. Plast Reconstr Surg - Glob Open. 2016;4(5):e720. doi:https://doi.org/10.1097/gox.0000000000000728
9.
DenadaiRChouPYSuYY,et al.Facial appearance and psychosocial features in orthognathic surgery: A FACE-Q- and 3D facial image-based comparative study of patient-, clinician-, and lay-observer-reported outcomes. J Clin Med. 2019;8(6):909. doi:https://doi.org/10.3390/jcm8060909
10.
HarrarHMyersSGhanemAM. Art or science? An evidence-based approach to human facial beauty a quantitative analysis towards an informed clinical aesthetic practice. Aesthetic Plast Surg. 2018;42(1):137-146. doi:https://doi.org/10.1007/s00266-017-1032-7
11.
AlhayekSAlsalemMAlotaibiYOmairA. Evaluation of facial appearance in patients with repaired cleft lip and palate: Comparing the assessment of laypeople and healthcare professionals. Maxillofac Plast Reconstr Surg. 2019;41(1):5. doi:https://doi.org/10.1186/s40902-019-0189-1
12.
AlamMKNoorNFMBasriRYewTFWenTH. Multiracial facial golden ratio and evaluation of facial appearance. PLoS ONE. 2015;10(11):e0142914. doi:https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0142914
13.
NguyenCNicolaiESJHeJJRoshchupkinGVCortenEML. 3D Surface imaging technology for objective automated assessment of facial interventions: A systematic review. J Plast, Reconstr Aesthetic Surg. 2022;75(11):4264-4272. doi:https://doi.org/10.1016/j.bjps.2022.06.086
14.
CodariMPucciarelliVStangoniF,et al.Facial thirds–based evaluation of facial asymmetry using stereophotogrammetric devices: Application to facial palsy subjects. J Cranio-Maxillofac Surg. 2017;45(1):76-81. doi:https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jcms.2016.11.003
MulderFJMosmullerDGMVetHd,et al.The cleft aesthetic rating scale for 18-year-old unilateral cleft lip and palate patients: A tool for nasolabial aesthetics assessment. Cleft Palate-Craniofacial J. 2016;55(7):1006-1012. doi:https://doi.org/10.1597/16-123
TurnerSRThomasPWNDowellTRumseyNSandyJR. Psychological outcomes amongst cleft patients and their families. Br J Plast Surg. 1997;50(1):1-9. doi:https://doi.org/10.1016/s0007-1226(97)91275-3
19.
MenonAKrishnanSShettyV. Development and application of a novel patient-reported outcome measure on QoL and facial aesthetics—A study on south Indian population. Cleft Palate-Craniofacial J. 2019;56(10):1340-1352. doi:https://doi.org/10.1177/1055665619852571
20.
PageMJMcKenzieJEBossuytPM, et al.The PRISMA 2020 statement: An updated guideline for reporting systematic reviews. Br Med J.2021;372:n71. doi:https://doi.org/10.1136/bmj.n71
21.
SterneJAHernánMAReevesBC, et al.ROBINS-I: A tool for assessing risk of bias in non-randomised studies of interventions. Br Med J.2016;355:i4919. doi:https://doi.org/10.1136/bmj.i4919
22.
LeeKNKohKS. Acellular human dermis, a good option for correcting the free border deficiency in secondary cleft lip deformity. J Plast, Reconstr Aesthetic Surg. 2012;65(3):356-361. doi:https://doi.org/10.1016/j.bjps.2011.09.035
23.
BearnDMildinhallSMurphyT,et al.Cleft lip and palate care in the United Kingdom—the Clinical Standards Advisory Group (CSAG) study. Part 4: Outcome comparisons, training, and conclusions. Cleft Palate-Craniofacial J. 2001;38(1):38-43. doi:https://doi.org/10.1597/1545-1569(2001)038<0038:clapci>2.0.co;2
24.
TobiasenJMHiebertJM. Facial impairment scales for clefts. Plast Reconstr Surg.1994;93(1):31-41.
25.
ZhangLLuLLiZj,et al.Anthropometric analysis of the maxillary bone and the alar base in unilateral cleft lip with secondary nasal deformity: Classification of a piriform margin bony depression. Cleft Palate-Craniofacial J. 2012;51(1):23-29. doi:https://doi.org/10.1597/11-205
26.
VegterFHageJJ. Lack of correlation between objective and subjective evaluation of residual stigmata in cleft patients. Ann Plast Surg. 2001;46(6):625-629. doi:https://doi.org/10.1097/00000637-200106000-00010
27.
KeijserKNowinskiDManiM. Photographic measurements partially correlate to nasal function and appearance among adult cleft patients. Plast Reconstr Surg - Glob Open. 2016;4(5):e720. doi:https://doi.org/10.1097/gox.0000000000000728
28.
YueHPiaoZCaoHChenHHuangL. Secondary correction of nasal deformities in cleft lip patients using acellular dermal matrix grafting on the nasal tip with open rhinoplasty. Br J Oral Maxillofac Surg. 2023;61(6):416-421. doi:https://doi.org/10.1016/j.bjoms.2023.04.003
29.
ChaithanyaaNRaiKKShivakumarHRUpasiA. Evaluation of the outcome of secondary rhinoplasty in cleft lip and palate patients. J Plast, Reconstr Aesthetic Surg. 2011;64(1):27-33. doi:https://doi.org/10.1016/j.bjps.2010.03.044
30.
ChristofidesEPotgieterAChaitL. A long term subjective and objective assessment of the scar in unilateral cleft lip repairs using the Millard technique without revisional surgery. J Plast, Reconstr Aesthetic Surg. 2006;59(4):380-386. doi:https://doi.org/10.1016/j.bjps.2005.04.037
31.
GerbinoGAutorinoUGiacconeENovaresioARamieriG. Virtual planning and CAD/CAM-assisted distraction for maxillary hypoplasia in cleft lip and palate patients: Accuracy evaluation and clinical outcome. J Cranio-Maxillofac Surg. 2021;49(9):799-808. doi:https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jcms.2021.03.004
32.
BaserBSinghPShubhaP. Achieving midvault symmetry in unilateral cleft nose deformity rhinoplasty. Egypt J Otolaryngol. 2022;38(1):158. doi:https://doi.org/10.1186/s43163-022-00339-2
33.
SohailMBashirMMBajwaMSFarooqUK. Comparing definitive unilateral cleft rhinoplasty with and without diced-cartilage alar-base augmentation: A retrospective cohort study. J Cranio-Maxillofac Surg. 2023;51(6):375-380. doi:https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jcms.2023.05.009
34.
HeLYuXLiuXChenWShuM. Tailored microform cleft lip repair: Personalizing small incisions, Orbicularis reconstruction, and rhinoplasty. J Craniofacial Surg. 2019;30(5):1520-1524. doi:https://doi.org/10.1097/scs.0000000000005345
GasslingVKoosBBirkenfeldFWiltfangJZimmermannCE. Secondary cleft nose rhinoplasty: Subjective and objective outcome evaluation. J Cranio-Maxillofac Surg. 2015;43(9):1855-1862. doi:https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jcms.2015.08.012
37.
RoosenboomJHellingsPWPicavetVA, et al.Secondary cleft rhinoplasty: Impact on self-esteem and quality of life. Plast Reconstr Surg. 2014;134(6):1285-1292. doi:https://doi.org/10.1097/prs.0000000000000727
38.
ChungKHLoLJ. Strategic management of the minor-form and microform cleft lip: A long-term outcome assessment. J Plast, Reconstr Aesthetic Surg. 2021;74(4):828-838. doi:https://doi.org/10.1016/j.bjps.2020.10.002
39.
RanganathanKKochkodanJMBakerMK, et al.Variation in the desire for cleft revision surgery among children, caregivers, and surgeons. Plast Reconstr Surg. 2019;144(1):171-178. doi:https://doi.org/10.1097/prs.0000000000005722
40.
ManiMRSembGAndlin-SobockiA. Nasolabial appearance in adults with repaired unilateral cleft lip and palate: Relation between professional and lay rating and patients’ satisfaction. J Plast Surg Hand Surg. 2010;44(4-5):191-198. doi:https://doi.org/10.3109/02844311.2010.499671
41.
FooPSampsonWRobertsRJamiesonLDavidD. Facial aesthetics and perceived need for further treatment among adults with repaired cleft as assessed by cleft team professionals and laypersons. Eur J Orthod. 2013;35(3):341-346. doi:https://doi.org/10.1093/ejo/cjr129
42.
GkantidisNPapamanouDAChristouPTopouzelisN. Aesthetic outcome of cleft lip and palate treatment. Perceptions of patients, families, and health professionals compared to the general public. J Cranio-Maxillofac Surg. 2013;41(7):e105-e110. doi:https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jcms.2012.11.034
43.
SinkoKJagschRPrechtlVWatzingerFHollmannKBaumannA. Evaluation of esthetic, functional, and quality-of-life outcome in adult cleft lip and palate patients. Cleft Palate-Craniofacial J. 2005;42(4):355-361. doi:https://doi.org/10.1597/03-142.1
44.
OosterkampBCMDijkstraPURemmelinkHJOortRvSandhamA. Orthodontic space closure versus prosthetic replacement of missing upper lateral incisors in patients with bilateral cleft lip and palate. Cleft Palate-Craniofacial J. 2010;47(6):591-596. doi:https://doi.org/10.1597/09-092
45.
HensGPicavetVAPoortenVVSchoenaersJJorissenMHellingsPW. High patient satisfaction after secondary rhinoplasty in cleft lip patients. Int Forum Allergy Rhinol. 2011;1(3):167-172. doi:https://doi.org/10.1002/alr.20023
46.
Meyer-MarcottyPStellzig-EisenhauerA. Dentofacial self-perception and social perception of adults with unilateral cleft lip and palate. J Orofac Orthop Fortschritte Kieferorthopädie. 2009;70(3):224-236. doi:https://doi.org/10.1007/s00056-009-8813-9
47.
TanRAMulderFJSchwirtzRMFMosmullerDGMVetHCWDGriotJPWD. Atypical outcomes of nasal and lip appearance after unilateral cleft lip repair: Judgment by professionals, patients, and laypeople. Cleft Palate-Craniofacial J. 2021;58(10):1226-1235. doi:https://doi.org/10.1177/1055665620982801
48.
LandesCABündgenLLaudemannKGhanaatiSSaderR. Patient satisfaction after prosthetic rehabilitation of bone-grafted alveolar clefts with nonsubmerged ITI straumann dental implants loaded at three months. Cleft Palate-Craniofacial J. 2011;49(5):601-608. doi:https://doi.org/10.1597/10-156
49.
PauschNCUngerCPitak-ArnnopPSubbalekhaK. Nasal appearance after secondary cleft rhinoplasty: Comparison of professional rating with patient satisfaction. Oral Maxillofac Surg. 2016;20(2):195-201. doi:https://doi.org/10.1007/s10006-016-0555-4
50.
ThittiwongRManosudprasitMWangsrimongkolT, et al.Evaluation of facial appearance among patients with repaired unilateral cleft lip and palate: Comparison of patient- and clinician-ratings of satisfaction. J Méd Assoc Thail Chotmaihet Thangphaet. 2015;98(Suppl 7):S68-S76.
51.
Pitak-ArnnopPHemprichADhanuthaiKYildirimVPauschNC. Panel and patient perceptions of nasal aesthetics after secondary cleft rhinoplasty with versus without columellar grafting. J Cranio-Maxillofac Surg. 2011;39(5):319-325. doi:https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jcms.2010.07.007
52.
MengTMaLWangZ. Comparative assessment of the cleft profile by patients with cleft lip and palate, cleft surgeons, and lay people. Aesthetic Plast Surg. 2015;39(5):757-763. doi:https://doi.org/10.1007/s00266-015-0546-0
53.
MarcussonAPaulinGÖstrupL. Facial appearance in adults who had cleft lip and palate treated in childhood. Scand J Plast Reconstr Surg Hand Surg. 2002;36(1):16-23. doi:https://doi.org/10.1080/028443102753478327
54.
MulderFJMosmullerDGMVetRdGriotJPWD. Aesthetics assessment and patient reported outcome of nasolabial aesthetics in 18-year-old patients with unilateral cleft lip. Cleft Palate-Craniofacial J. 2019;56(8):1058-1064. doi:https://doi.org/10.1177/1055665619832439
55.
ByrneMChanJCYO’BroinE. Perceptions and satisfaction of aesthetic outcome following secondary cleft rhinoplasty: Evaluation by patients versus health professionals. J Cranio-Maxillofac Surg. 2014;42(7):1062-1070. doi:https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jcms.2014.01.031
56.
DuggalITalwarADuggalRChaudhariPKSamritV. Comparative evaluation of nasolabial appearance of unilateral cleft lip and palate patients by professional, patient and layperson using 2 aesthetic scoring systems: A cross sectional study. Orthod Craniofacial Res. 2023;26(4):660-666. doi:https://doi.org/10.1111/ocr.12663
57.
DoganETiftikciogluYDoganS. Evaluation of nasolabial aesthetics by different groups in operated unilateral cleft lip and palate. J Stomatol, Oral Maxillofac Surg. 2020;121(6):672-679. doi:https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jormas.2020.01.005
58.
YildirimVHemprichAGründlMPauschNC. Panel perception of facial appearance of cleft patients generated by use of a morphing technique. Oral Maxillofac Surg. 2014;18(3):331-340. doi:https://doi.org/10.1007/s10006-014-0441-x
59.
MoolenburghSEMureauMAMHoferSOP. Aesthetic outcome after nasal reconstruction: Patient versus panel perception. J Plast, Reconstr Aesthetic Surg. 2008;61(12):1459-1464. doi:https://doi.org/10.1016/j.bjps.2007.09.018
60.
PaezA. Gray literature: An important resource in systematic reviews. J ÉvidBased Med. 2017;10(3):233-240. doi:https://doi.org/10.1111/jebm.12266
61.
GodinKStapletonJKirkpatrickSIHanningRMLeatherdaleST. Applying systematic review search methods to the grey literature: A case study examining guidelines for school-based breakfast programs in Canada. Syst Rev. 2015;4(1):138. doi:https://doi.org/10.1186/s13643-015-0125-0
