Restricted accessResearch articleFirst published online 2026-2
Cephalometric Parameters as Predictive Factors for Orthognathic Surgery in Unilateral Cleft Lip and Palate Patients: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis
To identify cephalometric parameters that could predict future need for orthognathic surgery (OGS) in patients with unilateral cleft lip and palate (UCLP).
Methods
Final search was conducted on July 7, 2024, across PubMed, Scopus, Embase, Web of Science, Cochrane, Ovid Medline, EBSCO, and LILACS, without any language and publication time restriction. Studies comparing surgical versus nonsurgical UCLP patients were included. Two independent reviewers screened studies, and those included were evaluated using Quality in Prognostic Studies (QUIPS) tool. Random-effects meta-analysis of various sagittal and vertical cephalometric parameters (SNA, SNB, ANB, mandibular plane angle [MPA], and lower anterior face height [%LFH]) was performed.
Results
Ten studies were included in systematic review and 5 in meta-analysis. Quality in Prognostic Studies tool assessment indicated moderate risk in 6 studies, with 2 demonstrating high and low risks of bias. Meta-analysis revealed that in the 5- to 8-year age group, significant differences were observed in SNA and ANB angles between surgical and nonsurgical groups, with mean differences of 2.25° (95% confidence interval [CI] = 1.12, 3.39) and 3° (95% CI = 1.86, 4.15), respectively. In 9- to 14-year age group, significant differences were found in all 3 sagittal parameters: SNA angle difference of 2.65° (95% CI = 1.44, 3.86), SNB angle difference of 3.23° (95% CI = −4.69, −1.77), and ANB angle difference of 5.54° (95% CI = 3.66, 7.42). Vertical parameters (MPA and %LFH) were not statistically significant between groups in any age group.
Conclusion
Cephalometric parameters could be a valuable predictive factor for determining the future need for OGS in patients with UCLP. ANB angle has been shown to be a significant predictor for distinguishing between surgical and nonsurgical patients.
ShetyePREvansCA. Midfacial morphology in adult unoperated complete unilateral cleft lip and palate patients. Angle Orthod. 2006;76(5):810‐816.
2.
YsunzaAPamplonaMCQuirozJ, et al.Maxillary growth in patients with complete cleft lip and palate, operated on around 4–6 months of age. Int J Pediatr Otorhinolaryngol. 2010;74(5):482‐485.
3.
RossRB. Treatment variables affecting facial growth in complete unilateral cleft lip and palate. Cleft Palate J. 1987;24(1):5‐77.
4.
ShiBLoseeJE. The impact of cleft lip and palate repair on maxillofacial growth. Int J Oral Sci. 2015;7(1):14‐17.
5.
TooLGoodSHaersP. Cleft orthognathic surgery. A critical review. Int J Oral Maxillofac Surg. 2015;44(1):e152.
6.
RamanathanMKirubaGAParameswaranCAKapoorASailerSFH. Distraction osteogenesis versus orthognathic surgery: demystifying differences in concepts, techniques and outcomes. J Maxillofac Oral Surg. 2020;19(4):477‐489.
7.
DaskalogiannakisJMehtaM. The need for orthognathic surgery in patients with repaired complete unilateral and complete bilateral cleft lip and palate. Cleft Palate Craniofac J. 2009;46(5):498‐502.
8.
JacobLFahradyanAPaulsonP, et al.Orthognathic surgery rate in cleft care. J Craniofac Surg. 2022;33(1):87‐92.
9.
ChoiKJWlodarczykJRNagengastES, et al.The likelihood of orthognathic surgery after orofacial cleft repair. J Craniofac Surg. 2021;32(3):902‐906.
10.
Mink van der MolenABvan BreugelJMMJanssenNG, et al.Clinical practice guidelines on the treatment of patients with cleft lip, alveolus, and palate: an executive summary. J Clin Med. 2021;10(21):4813.
11.
TacheAMommaertsMY. The need for maxillary osteotomy after primary cleft surgery: a systematic review framing a retrospective study. J Craniomaxillofac Surg. 2020;48(10):919‐927.
12.
HoustonWJ. The current status of facial growth prediction: a review. Br J Orthod. 1979;6(1):11‐17.
13.
HirschfeldWJMoyersRE. Prediction of craniofacial growth: the state of the art. Am J Orthod. 1971;60(5):435‐444.
14.
GnoinskiW. Early identification of candidates for corrective maxillary osteotomy in a cleft lip and palate group. Scand J Plast Reconstr Surg. 1987;21(1):39‐44.
15.
HeliövaaraARautioJ. A comparison of craniofacial cephalometric morphology and the later need for orthognathic surgery in 6-year-old cleft children. J Craniomaxillofac Surg. 2011;39(3):173‐176.
16.
HeliövaaraALeikolaJHukkiJ. Craniofacial cephalometric morphology and later need for orthognathic surgery in 6-year-old children with bilateral cleft lip and palate. Cleft Palate Craniofac J. 2013;50(2):35‐40.
17.
HeliövaaraALeikolaJ. Prediction of orthognathic surgery need in children with unilateral cleft lip palate: dental arch relationships and 5-year-olds’ index. Orthod Craniofac Res. 2021;24(4):528‐535.
18.
LinGKimPJBaekSHKimHGKimSWChungJH. Early prediction of the need for orthognathic surgery in patients with repaired unilateral cleft lip and palate using machine learning and longitudinal lateral cephalometric analysis data. J Craniofac Surg. 2021;32(2):616‐620.
19.
MeazziniMCCapelloAVVentriniF, et al.Long-term follow-up of UCLP patients: surgical and orthodontic burden of care during growth and final orthognathic surgery need. Cleft Palate Craniofac J. 2015;52(6):688‐697.
20.
NolletPJPMKatsarosCHuyskensRWFBorstlapWABronkhorstEMKuijpers-JagtmanAM. Cephalometric evaluation of long-term craniofacial development in unilateral cleft lip and palate patients treated with delayed hard palate closure. Int J Oral Maxillofac Surg. 2008;37(2):123‐130.
21.
OberoiSChigurupatiRVargervikK. Morphologic and management characteristics of individuals with unilateral cleft lip and palate who required maxillary advancement. Cleft Palate Craniofac J. 2008;45(1):42‐49.
22.
ParkHMKimPJKimHGKimSBaekSH. Prediction of the need for orthognathic surgery in patients with cleft lip and/or palate. J Craniofac Surg. 2015;26(4):1159‐1162.
23.
ScheuerHAHöltjeWJHasundAPfeiferG. Prognosis of facial growth in patients with unilateral complete clefts of the lip, alveolus and palate. J Craniomaxillofac Surg. 2001;29(4):198‐204.
24.
Yun-Chia KuMLoLJChenMCWen-Ching KoE.Predicting need for orthognathic surgery in early permanent dentition patients with unilateral cleft lip and palate using receiver operating characteristic analysis. Am J Orthod Dentofac Orthop. 2018;153(3):405‐414.
25.
Buj-AcostaCParedes-GallardoVMontiel-CompanyJMAlbaladejoABellot-ArcísC. Predictive validity of the GOSLON yardstick index in patients with unilateral cleft lip and palate: a systematic review. Milgrom PM, editor. PLoS ONE. 2017;12(6):e0178497.
26.
LimJTanikawaCKogoMYamashiroT. Prognostic factors for orthognathic surgery in children with cleft lip and/or palate: dentition and palatal morphology. Cleft Palate Craniofac J. 2023;60(12):1556–1564.
27.
LimJTanikawaCKogoMYamashiroT.Determination of prognostic factors for orthognathic surgery in children with cleft lip and/or palate. Orthod Craniofac Res. 2021;24(Suppl 2):153‐162.
28.
HeliövaaraALeikolaJRautioJ. Anterior crossbite, dental arch dimensions, and later need for orthognathic surgery in 6-year-old children with unilateral cleft lip and palate. Cleft Palate Craniofac J. 2014;51(5):579‐584.
29.
BroomeMHerzogGHohlfeldJde Buys RoessinghAJaquesB. Influence of the primary cleft palate closure on the future need for orthognathic surgery in unilateral cleft lip and palate patients. J Craniofac Surg. 2010;21(5):1615‐1618.
30.
YuSHBaekSHChoiJYLeeJHKimSOnSW. Cephalometric predictors of future need for orthognathic surgery in Korean patients with unilateral cleft lip and palate despite long-term use of facemask with miniplate. Korean J Orthod. 2021;51(1):43‐54.
31.
BittermannGKPDe RuiterAPBittermannAJn, et al. Midfacial growth and dental arch relationships in bilateral cleft palate following secondary alveolar bone grafting and orthodontic intervention: factors predicting a Le fort I osteotomy at age 18. J Craniomaxillofac Surg. 2018;46(10):1764‐1771.
32.
HigginsJPTThomasJChandlerJCumpstonMLiTPageMJWelchVA (eds). Cochrane Handbook for Systematic Reviews of Interventions version 6.4 (updated August 2023). Cochrane, 2023. Available from www.training.cochrane.org/handbook.
33.
PageMJMcKenzieJEBossuytPM, et al.The PRISMA 2020 statement: an updated guideline for reporting systematic reviews. J Clin Epidemiol. 2021;134:178‐189.
34.
HaydenJAvan der WindtDACartwrightJLCôtéPBombardierC. Assessing bias in studies of prognostic factors. Ann Intern Med. 2013;158(4):280‐286.
35.
GrootenWJATseliEÄngBO, et al.Elaborating on the assessment of the risk of bias in prognostic studies in pain rehabilitation using QUIPS—aspects of interrater agreement. Diagn Progn Res. 2019;3(1):5.
36.
TseliEBoersmaKStålnackeBM, et al.Prognostic factors for physical functioning after multidisciplinary rehabilitation in patients with chronic musculoskeletal pain: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Clin J Pain. 2019;35(2):148‐173.
37.
SusamiTOkayasuMInokuchiT, et al.Maxillary protraction in patients with cleft lip and palate in mixed dentition: cephalometric evaluation after completion of growth. Cleft Palate Craniofac J. 2014;51(5):514‐524.
38.
YiCGoldsteinJKumarASchusterL.Protraction headgear compliance and orthognathic surgery in cleft lip and palate patients. Cleft Palate Craniofac J. 2021;58(4 SUPPL):5.
WangsrimongkolTManosudprasitMGodfreyKKuratchatchavalCSurakunpraphaP.Prediction of final treatment for class III malocclusion of patients with oral clefts. J Med Assoc Thail. 2011;94 (Suppl 6):S9‐14.
41.
KreyKF. Factors influencing the decision for orthognathic surgery in cleft palate patients. Virtual J Orthod. 2013;10(1):10‐26.
42.
YeBWuYZhouYJingHHuJZhangG. A comparative cephalometric study for adult operated cleft palate and unoperated cleft palate patients. J Craniomaxillofac Surg. 2015;43(7):1218‐1223.
43.
LintonJL. Comparative study of diagnostic measures in borderline surgical cases of unilateral cleft lip and palate and noncleft class III malocclusions. Am J Orthod Dentofac Orthop. 1998;113(5):526‐537.
44.
ValleyMARosensteinSWLautenschlagerEPGaraOMM. Early prediction of the need for orthognathic surgery in cleft lip and palate patients. Northwest Dent Res. 1995;6(1):24‐28.
45.
HuiBKLaiLHNguyenPD, et al.Maxillary hypoplasia in the cleft patient: contribution of dental agenesis to Le Fort I advancement surgery. J Oral Maxillofac Surg. 2014;72(9):e56‐e57.
46.
YenSLK. Late maxillary protraction techniques for cleft lip and palate. Semin Orthod. 2017;23(3):305‐313.
47.
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.
48.
De MulderDCadenas de Llano-PérulaMWillemsGJacobsRDormaarJTVerdonckA.An optimized imaging protocol for orofacial cleft patients. Clin Exp Dent Res. 2018;4(5):152‐157.
49.
BongaartsCAMvan’t HofMAPrahl-AndersenBKuijpers-JagtmanAM. Identification of cephalometric landmarks in unilateral cleft lip and palate patients: are there alternatives for point A, ANS, and PNS?Cleft Palate Craniofac J. 2008;45(1):81‐86.
50.
DoğanSDoğanEDi˙ndaroğluFÇinarcikH.Is cephalometric analysis reliable in cases with cleft lip and palate? Ege Üniversitesi Diş Hekim Fakültesi. 2020;41(1):27‐37.
51.
RawatSSJadhavVVPaulP.A comparative analysis of skeletal and dental parameters in bilateral cleft lip and palate vs. non-bilateral cleft lip and palate patients in the central Indian population: a NemoCeph study. Cureus. 2024;16(2):e54497.
52.
VadenJLPearsonLE. Diagnosis of the vertical dimension. Semin Orthod. 2002;8(3):120‐129.
53.
MeazziniMCGiussaniGMorabitoASembGGarattiniGBrusatiR. A cephalometric intercenter comparison of patients with unilateral cleft lip and palate: analysis at 5 and 10 years of age and long term. Cleft Palate Craniofac J. 2008;45(6):654‐660.
54.
MølstedKAsher-McDadeCBrattströmV, et al.A six-center international study of treatment outcome in patients with clefts of the lip and palate: part 2. Craniofacial form and soft tissue profile. Cleft Palate Craniofac J. 1992;29(5):398‐404.
55.
AntonarakisGSWattsGDaskalogiannakisJ. The need for orthognathic surgery in nonsyndromic patients with repaired isolated cleft palate. Cleft Palate Craniofac J. 2015;52(1):e8‐13.
56.
PowellKKLewisPSesantoRWaitePD. Does early secondary alveolar bone grafting influence need for additional maxillary advancement procedures in cleft lip and palate?Cleft Palate Craniofac J. 2022;59(10):1279‐1285.
57.
BartzelaTN.Treatment approaches to syndromes affecting craniofacial and dental structures. J World Fed Orthod. 2019;8(4):131‐137.
Supplementary Material
Please find the following supplemental material available below.
For Open Access articles published under a Creative Commons License, all supplemental material carries the same license as the article it is associated with.
For non-Open Access articles published, all supplemental material carries a non-exclusive license, and permission requests for re-use of supplemental material or any part of supplemental material shall be sent directly to the copyright owner as specified in the copyright notice associated with the article.
