Restricted accessResearch articleFirst published online 2025
Three-Dimensional Pharyngeal Airway Changes After Anterior Maxillary Distraction and Conventional Maxillary Distraction in Patients With Unilateral Cleft Lip and Palate
To compare pharyngeal airway changes after anterior maxillary distraction and conventional maxillary distraction in patients with unilateral cleft lip and palate (UCLP).
Design
Retrospective study.
Setting
Tertiary care medical center for cleft care.
Patients
A total of 20 patients with UCLP and hypoplastic maxilla were selected.
Intervention
Group 1 (n = 10): Anterior Maxillary Distraction, Group 2 (n = 10): Conventional maxillary distraction.
Outcome Measures
The primary outcomes assessed on pre- and postsurgical cone beam computed tomography were changes in the nasopharyngeal, oropharyngeal, and total pharyngeal airway area and volume, as well as the minimal axial area. These 2 distraction techniques were compared for their impact on upper airway dimensions.
Results
In Group 1, the nasopharyngeal area increased significantly by 43.60 mm2, and the oropharyngeal area decreased by 40.80 mm2. There were no significant changes in the volume and area of all the other pharyngeal parameters. In Group 2, the nasopharyngeal area and volume increased by 202.70 mm2 and 5.0 cm3, respectively, the oropharyngeal area and volume increased by 176.20 mm2 and 7.9 cm3, respectively, the total pharyngeal area and volume increased by 380.50 mm2 and 14.0 cm3, respectively, and the minimal axial area increased by 133.50 mm2.
Conclusion
Anterior maxillary distraction had a negligible impact on the pharyngeal airway compared to conventional distraction. The choice between these 2 interventions should also take into consideration associated comorbidities related to pharyngeal airway and speech.
MarkusAFDelaireJSmithWP. Facial balance in cleft lip and palate. II. Cleft lip and palate and secondary deformities. Br J Oral Maxillofac Surg. 1992;30(5):296–304.
2.
PhillipsJHKlaimanPDeloreyRMacDonaldDB. Predictors of velopharyngeal insufficiency in cleft palate orthognathic surgery. Plast Reconstr Surg. 2005;115(3):681–686.
3.
JanulewiczJCostelloBJBuckleyMJFordMDCloseJGassnerR. The effects of Le fort I osteotomies on velopharyngeal and speech functions in cleft patients. J Oral Maxillofac Surg. 2004;62(3):308–314.
4.
FigueroaAAPolleyJWFriedeHKoEW. Long-term skeletal stability after maxillary advancement with distraction osteogenesis using a rigid external distraction device in cleft maxillary deformities. Plast Reconstr Surg. 2004;114(6):1382–1392.
5.
ChanchareonsookNWhitehillTLSammanN. Speech outcome and velopharyngeal function in cleft palate: comparison of Le fort I maxillary osteotomy and distraction osteogenesis–early results. Cleft Palate Craniofac J. 2007;44(1):23–32.
6.
BlockMSBristerGD. Use of distraction osteogenesis for maxillary advancement: preliminary results. J Oral Maxillofac Surg. 1994;52(3):282–286.
7.
DolanmazDKaramanAIOzyesilAG. Maxillary anterior segmental advancement by using distraction osteogenesis: a case report. Angle Orthod. 2003;73(2):201–205.
8.
AboudaraCNielsenIHuangJCMakiKMillerAJHatcherD. Comparison of airway space with conventional lateral headfilms and 3-dimensional reconstruction from cone-beam computed tomography. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop. 2009;135(4):468–479.
9.
AbuzinadaSAlyamaniA. Upper airway changes after maxillary distraction osteogenesis in cleft lip and palate patients. Open J Stomatol. 2016;6(1):22–27.
10.
MochidaMOnoTSaitoKTsuikiSOhyamaK. Effects of maxillary distraction osteogenesis on the upper-airway size and nasal resistance in subjects with cleft lip and palate. Orthod Craniofac Res. 2004;7(4):189–197.
11.
HaradaKIshiiYIshiiMImaizumiHMibuMOmuraK. Effect of maxillary distraction osteogenesis on velopharyngeal function: a pilot study. Oral Surg Oral Med Oral Pathol Oral Radiol Endod. 2002;93(5):538–543.
12.
ChanCHTsaiCYLaiJPLinSSChangYJ. Assessing the impact of transcutaneous maxillary distraction osteogenesis on pharyngeal airway volume in children with cleft lip and palate: a 3D evaluation study. J Pers Med. 2023;13(3):543.
13.
MolinaFOrtiz MonasterioFde la Paz AguilarMBarreraJ. Maxillary distraction: aesthetic and functional benefits in cleft lip-palate and prognathic patients during mixed dentition. Plast Reconstr Surg. 1998;101(4):951–963.
14.
TahmasbiSJamilianAShowkatbakhshRPourdaneshFBehnazM. Cephalometric changes in nasopharyngeal area after anterior maxillary segmental distraction versus Le fort I osteotomy in patients with cleft lip and palate. Eur J Dent. 2018;12(03):393–397.
15.
LiHDaiJSiJ, ZhangJ, WangM, ShenS, YuH. Anterior maxillary segmental distraction in the treatment of severe maxillary hypoplasia secondary to cleft lip and palate. Int J Clin Exp Med. 2015;8(9):16022–16028.
16.
Rao JanardhanSKotrashettiSMLingarajJBPintoPXKeluskarKMJainSSonePRaoS. Anterior segmental distraction osteogenesis in the hypoplastic cleft maxilla: report of five cases. Sultan Qaboos Univ Med J. 2013;13(3):454–459.
17.
YuHWangXFangBShenSG. Comparative study of different osteotomy modalities in maxillary distraction osteogenesis for cleft lip and palate. J Oral Maxillofac Surg. 2012;70(11):2641–2647.
18.
ChoBCKyungHM. Distraction osteogenesis of the hypoplastic midface using a rigid external distraction system: the results of a one- to six-year follow-up. Plast Reconstr Surg.2006;118(5):1201–1212.
19.
Guijarro-MartínezRSwennenGRJ. Three-dimensional cone beam computed tomography definition of the anatomical subregions of the upper airway: a validation study. Int J Oral Maxillofac Surg. 2013;42(9):1140–1149.
20.
HermannNVDarvannTAJensenBLDahlEBolundSKreiborgS. Early craniofacial morphology and growth in children with bilateral complete cleft lip and palate. Cleft Palate Craniofac J. 2004;41(4):424–438.
21.
SalesPHHCostaFWGCetira FilhoELSilvaPGBAlbuquerqueAFMLeãoJC. Effect of maxillary advancement on speech and velopharyngeal function of patients with cleft palate: systematic review and meta-analysis. Int J Oral Maxillofac Surg.2021;50(1):64–74.
22.
KhaghaninejadMSKhojastehpourLDanestehHChangiziMAhrariF. Changes in the pharyngeal airway after different orthognathic procedures for correction of class III dysplasia. Maxillofac Plast Reconstr Surg. 2022;44(1):23.
23.
KongsongWRochanavibhataSChangsiripunCSinpitaksakulPChirakalwasanN. Effects of mandibular setback surgery using the surgery-first approach versus conventional orthognathic approach on upper airway change and sleep quality. Head Face Med. 2025;21(1):37.
24.
CarvalhoAR da RM dePollmannMCFMartinsEJP. Upper airway dimensions and craniofacial morphology: a correlation study using cone beam computed tomography. Korean J Orthod. 2024;54(5):274–283.
25.
Al-SomairiMAALiuYAlmashraqAA, AlmaqramiBS, AlshoaibiLH, AlyafruseeES, Al-TayarB, AnX, AlhammadiMS.Correlation between the three-dimensional maxillomandibular complex parameters and pharyngeal airway dimensions in different sagittal and vertical malocclusions. Dentomaxillofac Radiol. 2023;52(3):20220346.
26.
AltheerCPapageorgiouSNAntonarakisGSPapadopoulouAK. Do patients with different craniofacial patterns have differences in upper airway volume? A systematic review with network meta-analysis. Eur J Orthod. 2024;46(2):cjae010.
27.
LenzaMGLenza MM deODalstraMMelsenBCattaneoPM. An analysis of different approaches to the assessment of upper airway morphology: a CBCT study. Orthod Craniofac Res. 2010;13(2):96–105.
28.
ElHPalomoJM. Measuring the airway in 3 dimensions: a reliability and accuracy study. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop. 2010;137(4 Suppl):S50.e1–9. discussion S50–52.
29.
AksuMTanerTSahin-VeskePKocadereliİKonasEMaviliME. Pharyngeal airway changes associated with maxillary distraction osteogenesis in adult cleft lip and palate patients. J Oral Maxillofac Surg. 2012;70(2):e133–e140.
30.
XuHYuZMuX. The assessment of midface distraction osteogenesis in treatment of upper airway obstruction. J Craniofac Surg. 2009;20(Suppl 2):1876–1881.
31.
KoEWFigueroaAAGuyetteTWPolleyJWLawWR. Velopharyngeal changes after maxillary advancement in cleft patients with distraction osteogenesis using a rigid external distraction device: a 1-year cephalometric follow-up. J Craniofac Surg. 1999;10(4):312–320. discussion 321–322.
32.
RichardsonSSelvarajDKhandeparkerRVSeelanNSRichardsonS. Tooth-borne anterior maxillary distraction for cleft maxillary hypoplasia: our experience with 147 patients. J Oral Maxillofac Surg. 2016;74(12):2504.e1–2504.e14.
33.
WangXXWangXLiZLYiBLiangCJiaYLZouBS. Anterior maxillary segmental distraction for correction of maxillary hypoplasia and dental crowding in cleft palate patients: a preliminary report. Int J Oral Maxillofac Surg. 2009;38(12):1237–1243.
