Sage Journals: Discover world-class research

Abstract

Objective

This pilot study explored the predictive capabilities of individual components and composite scores of the Asher-McDade Esthetic Index (AMEI) for determining the need for nasolabial revision surgery in patients with repaired complete unilateral cleft lip and palate (UCLP). Receiver operating characteristic (ROC) analysis and Youden's index were employed to assess predictive power and identify optimal thresholds, respectively.

Design

Single-center retrospective cross-sectional pilot study

Setting

Cleft and craniofacial center

Participants

Thirty-two pre-adolescent patients with complete UCLP who underwent primary repair.

Interventions

Standardized frontal and lateral facial photographs were rated by three calibrated plastic surgeons using the AMEI. Components assessed included nasal form, nasal symmetry, vermilion border, and nasolabial profile. A separate panel of three plastic surgeons determined the need for nose and/or lip surgical revision by majority vote, based on the same photographs. ROC analysis evaluated the predictive ability of individual AMEI components and composite scores, with cutoffs identified via Youden's Index.

Main Outcome Measures

The predictive ability of AMEI for determining the need for nasolabial revision, using ROC analysis and Youden's Index.

Results

Nasal symmetry demonstrated the highest predictive accuracy for nose revision, and vermilion border was the strongest predictor for lip revision. Although composite scores showed promising predictive potential, they did not surpass the predictive power of the strongest individual AMEI components.

Conclusion

This pilot study provides preliminary evidence that the AMEI can serve as a useful objective tool to predict the need for revision surgery in patients with repaired UCLP.

Keywords

cleft lip and palate facial esthetics rhinoplasty nasal morphology lip form

Introduction

Patients with repaired cleft lip and palate frequently present with compromised nasolabial esthetics and altered craniofacial morphology, resulting from both the congenital defect and deformities secondary to primary surgical repairs.^1–3 The management of cleft lip and palate is an inherently complex process and requires a coordinated multidisciplinary approach. Treatment protocols vary substantially across centers, influenced by clinician expertise, surgical techniques, timing, and institutional preferences.⁴

Despite recent advances in primary cleft management, optimal functional and esthetic outcomes remain challenging for clinicians.² Patients with unilateral cleft lip and palate (UCLP) often present with secondary deformities, including nasal asymmetry, upper lip scarring, midface hypoplasia, and concave facial profile.^5–7 These deformities often cause esthetic dissatisfaction among patients and their parents and lead them to pursue surgical revision procedures, with lip and nose revisions being the most frequently performed.⁸ Secondary lip and nose revisions significantly improve not just esthetics but also psychosocial outcomes, including confidence, self-esteem, and social interactions.⁹ However, the decision to proceed with revision surgery often lacks objective criteria and relies heavily on clinicians’ subjective judgment.^10,11 Perceptions of the revision varied considerably among clinicians, influenced by their training, experience, and individual surgeon thresholds.¹² This resulted in a significant variation in revision rates across cleft centers globally.^13,14 The variation was also attributed to differences in treatment protocols and initial repair quality.¹⁵ In addition, revision surgery remains a common burden for many patients and could potentially be influenced by health literacy, socioeconomic status, and access to healthcare services.¹⁶

To better delineate the influence of surgical techniques and timing on treatment outcomes, several intercenter studies, such as the Eurocleft, Americleft, and UK Clinical Standards Advisory Group studies, investigated the impacts of different primary surgical protocols on nasolabial esthetic outcomes.^10,17,18 The Asher-McDade Esthetic Index (AMEI) is among the most widely used tools for standardized assessment of nasolabial appearance in patients with repaired UCLP. This index evaluates nasal form, nasal symmetry, nasolabial profile, and vermilion border on a 5-point ordinal scale.¹⁹ The higher scores indicate poorer appearance and generally reflect greater esthetic dissatisfaction as well as increased demand for revision surgery.^10,15 In addition, the AMEI demonstrated good reliability, particularly when assessments are conducted by three or more raters.^20–22

In publicly funded healthcare systems, such as the National Health Service (UK) and the National Health Security Office (Thailand), financial coverage for secondary revisions is typically approved only when justified by significant functional or esthetic impairment deemed medically necessary.²³ To reduce subjectivity for surgical revision needs and promote equitable access to care, the use of objective assessment tools is required. The UK Index of Orthodontic Treatment Need (IOTN) exemplified how standardized criteria can guide treatment eligibility and help prioritize individuals with greater orthodontic treatment need based on their malocclusion severity and esthetic ratings.²⁴ Similarly, the AMEI, a commonly adopted esthetic index with a reproducible method to objectively assess nasolabial appearance for patients with repaired UCLP, could provide an objective criterion for determining the need for nasolabial surgical revision for patients with oral clefts. However, the utility of the AMEI in predicting the need for revision surgery has not yet been investigated. Therefore, this pilot study aimed to evaluate the predictive capabilities of the AMEI as an objective tool for determining the need for nose and/or lip revision surgery in patients with repaired complete UCLP using receiver operating characteristic (ROC) analysis and Youden's index.

Methods

Subjects

Patients with complete UCLP born between February 1997 and January 2002 at a cleft and craniofacial center were reviewed. Inclusion criteria were patients in their mixed dentition stage with facial photographs and dental models taken at birth before the initiation of nasoalveolar molding (NAM), as well as frontal and lateral profile photographs taken as pre-orthodontic records. Patients with Simonart's band, other craniofacial anomalies and associated syndromes, a history of revision surgery, alveolar bone graft surgery, orthodontics, and treatments other than NAM and primary cleft surgical repairs were excluded. All patients received their primary management protocol, which included presurgical NAM, followed by cheiloplasty using a modified Millard technique and primary rhinoplasty at 3 to 5 months of age. Palatoplasty was subsequently performed at 12 or 18 months using either the Bardach or von Langenbeck technique.

Nasolabial Esthetics Rating

Frontal and lateral profile photographs were obtained and cropped to eliminate surrounding facial features, leaving only the nasolabial area visible. This included the inner canthus, nasal bridge, nostrils, philtrum, and upper lip. All photographs were standardized with a uniform background color and imported into a PowerPoint presentation (Microsoft Corporation. Microsoft PowerPoint. Version 16. Redmond, WA: Microsoft Corporation; 2024). Each presentation slide simultaneously displayed both the frontal and lateral views of an individual patient (Figure 1). Slides were randomized and anonymized. Assessments were conducted by three experienced craniofacial plastic surgeons specializing in cleft care (one female and two males). None of the raters was involved in the patients’ primary surgeries. The AMEI was used to rate the nasolabial esthetic appearance. All raters were familiarized and calibrated before the actual rating sessions.¹⁹ Nasal form, nasal symmetry, and vermilion border were evaluated using frontal photographs, while the nasolabial profile was assessed using lateral profile photographs. Each nasolabial component was scored on a 5-point ordinal scale, where 1 indicates in very good appearance and 5 represents a very poor appearance. There was no time limit imposed during the rating sessions. Raters completed their assessments independently, without consultation or discussion. All patients were rated twice, with a 2-week interval between sessions. The slide order was re-randomized to minimize rater memory bias. Intrarater and interrater reliability of these ordinal data was evaluated using the intraclass correlation coefficient (ICC). The interpretation of the ICC values was based on Koo and Li.²⁵

Figure 1.

An example of a presentation slide used for the Asher-McDade Esthetic Index assessments and decisions to perform the nasolabial revision surgery in this study.

Scores from both sessions were tabulated as individual AMEI component scores and composite scores. Due to non-normal distribution, the median scores were used for all further analyses.²⁶ Composite scores were computed in both unweighted and weighted methods. The unweighted score was calculated from the median of the four components. The weighted score was performed according to Kantar et al.²⁷ They demonstrated that the components contributed unequally to overall nasolabial esthetics and proposed the following weights for each component score: nasal form (1.6), vermilion border (0.4), and nasal symmetry and nasolabial profile (1).

Nose and Lip Revision Surgery Decisions

A separate panel of three experienced craniofacial plastic surgeons was recruited. The panel also consisted of one female and two males, none of whom had been involved in the primary surgeries of the included patients. The same set of cropped frontal and lateral profile photographs was reordered and displayed to evaluate the decision to perform revision surgery on the lip and/or nose (Figure 1). The decision in favor of revision surgery was counted when at least two of the three raters concurred that such intervention was necessary. Interrater reliability for these categorical data was evaluated using Cohen's Kappa statistic. The interpretation of the Kappa coefficients followed the guidelines proposed by Landis and Koch.²⁸

Statistical Methods

ROC analysis was performed to evaluate the predictive capabilities of individual AMEI components and composite scores in determining the need for nasolabial revision surgery. Specifically, nasal form, nasal symmetry, and nasolabial profile were assessed for their ability to predict the need for nose revision, while the nasolabial profile and vermilion border were evaluated for their predictive ability in determining the need for lip revision. Both unweighted and weighted composite scores were also analyzed for their predictive performance in nose and lip revision (See Figure 2). ROC curves were generated by plotting the true positive rate (sensitivity) on the y-axis and (1 – specificity) on the x-axis at various scores of each AMEI component and composite scores.²⁹ Greater curvature toward the upper-left corner of the plot reflects stronger discriminative performance, whereas curves approaching the diagonal line indicate poorer predictive ability. The area under the ROC curve (AUC) represents the degree of predictive power with values ranging from 0 to 1. The AUC can be interpreted as follows: 0.60-0.70 indicated poor discrimination, 0.70-0.80 fair, 0.80-0.90 good, and 0.90-1.00 excellent.³⁰ In this study, the AUC and corresponding 95% confidence intervals were used to evaluate the ability of the AMEI to distinguish between patients who required revision surgery and those who did not. In addition, the optimal cutoff score for each predictor was determined using the Youden Index (J), which identified the cutoff value that maximized sensitivity and specificity.³¹ The statistically significant level was set at P < .05.

Figure 2.

Individual component and composite scores of the Asher-McDade Esthetic Index were assessed for their predictive capabilities regarding the need for the nasolabial revision surgery.

All statistical analyses were performed using the Statistical Package for the Social Sciences (SPSS) (IBM Corporation. IBM SPSS Statistics for Macintosh. Version 29. Armonk, NY: IBM Corporation; 2023).

Results

Participants

Frontal and lateral profile facial photographs of 32 patients with repaired complete UCLP, taken as part of pre-orthodontic treatment records, were collected for the analysis. The mean age at the time photographs were taken was 8.08 years (range, 6.67-10.34 years). The subjects comprised 23 males and 9 females, with 34.4% identifying as Caucasian and 65.6% as Hispanic. Regarding cleft laterality, 23 patients presented with the left side, and the remaining with the right.

Reliability

For AMEI ratings of nasolabial esthetics, the vermilion border showed the highest consistency, followed by nasal form, nasal symmetry, and nasolabial profile. Intrarater and interrater reliability were good, with mean ICCs of 0.788 and 0.871, respectively.²⁵ Reliability for nose revision showed fair to moderate agreement,²⁸ with mean kappa values of 0.307 for intrarater and 0.455 for interrater assessments. For lip revisions, intrarater and interrater reliability were slight to fair,²⁸ with mean kappa values of 0.255 and 0.328, respectively. Detailed results are provided in Supplementary Table.

Predictive Capabilities of the Asher-McDade Esthetic Index for Nasolabial Revision Surgery

For the prediction of nose revision surgery, nasal symmetry demonstrated the highest predictive capability (AUC = 0.837, P < .001), followed by the unweighted composite score (AUC = 0.831) and nasal form (AUC = 0.825). At a cutoff score of 2.25, nasal symmetry achieved 85.7% sensitivity and 77.8% specificity. The unweighted composite score yielded the same sensitivity but slightly lower specificity (72.2%) at a cutoff score of 2.125. Nasal form offered the highest sensitivity (92.9%) at a 2.75 cutoff score with only 72.2% specificity. The weighted composite score, despite a lower AUC (0.796), achieved the highest specificity (88.9%) at a cutoff of 2.625, but the sensitivity dropped to 64.3%. Nasolabial profile had the weakest predictive ability (AUC = 0.692, P = .043), with 71.4% sensitivity and 61.1% specificity.

For the prediction of lip revision surgery, the vermilion border demonstrated the highest predictive ability (AUC = 0.856, P = .001), with 100.0% specificity and 60.0% sensitivity at a cutoff score of 3.5. Nasolabial profile also exhibited a good predictive value (AUC = 0.774, P = .001), achieving 100.0% sensitivity but lower specificity (55.6%) at a cutoff score of 2.25. Both unweighted and weighted composite scores showed comparable predictive performance, with AUCs of 0.833 (P = .007) and 0.841 (P < .001), respectively. At an identical cutoff score of 2.875, both scores yielded 80.0% sensitivity and 85.2%. Results are summarized in Figure 3 and Table 1.

Figure 3.

ROC curves for the predictive performance of the Asher-McDade Esthetic Index for determining decisions for nasolabial revision: (A) nasal form, nasal symmetry, nasolabial profile, unweighted composite, and weighted composite scores predicting nose revision; (B) nasolabial profile, vermilion border, unweighted composite, and weighted composite scores predicting lip revision. ROC, receiver operating characteristic.

Table 1.

ROC Analysis of Asher-McDade Esthetic Index for Predicting Nasolabial Revision Surgery.

Prediction	Predictors	AUC (95% CI)	P-value	Cutoff score	Sensitivity at cutoff score	Specificity at cutoff score
Nose revision surgery
	Nasal symmetry	0.837 (0.693-0.982)	<.001	2.250	85.7%	77.8%
	Unweighted composite	0.831 (0.684-0.979)	<.001	2.125	85.7%	72.2%
	Nasal form	0.825 (0.673-0.977)	<.001	2.750	92.9%	72.2%
	Weighted composite	0.796 (0.637-0.954)	<.001	2.625	64.3%	88.9%
	Nasolabial profile	0.692 (0.506-0.879	.043	2.250	71.4%	61.1%
Lip revision surgery
	Vermilion border	0.856 (0.643-1.068)	.001	3.500	60.0%	100.0%
	Weighted composite	0.841 (0.661-1.021)	<.001	2.875	80.0%	85.2%
	Unweighted composite	0.833 (0.591-1.076)	.007	2.875	80.0%	85.2%
	Nasolabial profile	0.774 (0.610-0.938)	.001	2.250	100.0%	55.6%

Abbreviations: AUC, area under the ROC curve; CI, confidence interval; ROC, receiver operating characteristic.

Discussion

Nasolabial esthetics is one of the principal outcomes in the management of cleft lip and palate.³² However, perceptions of appearance vary not only among individual patients but also among clinicians.² While the need for nose and/or lip revision surgery may be apparent in certain patients, the decision to perform such surgeries often lacked consensus within the cleft team.^10,33 Our study indicated low agreement among surgeons for decisions to perform both nose and lip surgical revisions,²⁸ similar to previous findings by Trotman and coworkers.³³ They reported poor agreement among eight plastic surgeons when subjectively evaluating the need for lip revision. The low interobserver agreement is expected as revision decisions are often influenced by surgeons’ training and experience.¹² These results reflected the subjective nature of clinical judgment and reinforced the need to reduce subjectivity in the decision-making process when managing patients with repaired UCLP. To date, no standardized objective tools have been implemented to support revision surgery decisions. The AMEI has demonstrated good reliability in evaluating nasolabial esthetics following primary repair,²² and our results also confirmed good intrarater and interrater agreement, consistent with previous studies.^20,21

For the decisions regarding nose revision surgery, our findings revealed that nasal symmetry demonstrated the highest predictive capability, with an AUC of 0.837. Youden's index identified an optimal cutoff score of 2.250 for nasal symmetry, achieving a sensitivity of 85.7%. High sensitivity is crucial to ensure that patients who would benefit from revision surgery are not overlooked, particularly in cleft care, where undertreatment of nasal deformities can result in persistent functional and psychosocial burdens.³⁴ Marcusson and associates⁸ reported that 58% of treated adults remained dissatisfied with their surgical outcomes, with 38% specifically seeking rhinoplasty, emphasizing the long-term importance of accurate revision assessment for nasal deformities. This study also identified nasal form as another significant AMEI component predictor for nasal revision (P < .001). This suggests that greater attention should be given to the evaluation of nasal symmetry and form in routine clinical assessments. Nasal symmetry evaluates the degree of deviation of the nose from an imaginary vertical midline drawn between the inner canthi, assessing the balance and alignment of the nasal tip and alar bases. And nasal form appraises the overall shape and contour, including deformities such as broadness or flattening. Our results demonstrated that nasal symmetry had superior predictive performance and higher sensitivity in identifying the need for nose revision. In contrast, Kantar et al²⁷ placed greater emphasis on nasal form over symmetry in their overall assessment of nasolabial appearance.

In regard to predicting the need for lip revision surgery, the vermilion border emerged as the strongest individual predictor (AUC = 0.856, P = .001), indicating a good level of predictive capability.³⁰ At the optimal cutoff score of 3.5, it achieved 100.0% specificity, reliably identifying patients who do not require revision. This finding is particularly valuable in clinical practice, where false positives could result in unnecessary surgical revision procedures. However, the sensitivity was relatively modest at 60.0%, suggesting a considerable proportion of patients who may benefit from revision could be underidentified. The nasolabial profile showed fair predictive capability with an AUC of 0.774 (P = .001). At a cutoff score of 2.250, it achieved 100.0% sensitivity, effectively identifying all patients who do need surgery. Nonetheless, its specificity was only 55.6%, reflecting lower precision in ruling out those who do not require revision. Thus, while the vermilion border is more effective at accurately ruling out patients who do not require surgery, the nasolabial profile is more sensitive in identifying all patients who do require revision. This concluded the importance of incorporating both frontal (vermilion border) and lateral (nasolabial profile) views to guide clinical decision-making in lip revision surgery.

In this study, composite scores exhibited lower predictive performance compared with certain individual components. For nose revision, the composite scores achieved an AUC of 0.831 and 0.796 for the unweighted and weighted scores, respectively. The scores for the lip revision (0.833 for the unweighted and 0.841 for the weighted scores) performed comparably. Although these results indicate reasonable predictive power, the composite scores did not outperform the strongest individual components, which target anatomically specific deformities. This likely explains why individual component ratings are more clinically relevant for guiding revision decisions, whereas composite scores may be better suited for providing an overall assessment of nasolabial appearance outcomes.

This study relied solely on professional assessments to determine the need for revision surgery. However, previous research by Mani and colleagues² demonstrated that laypersons tend to assign poorer esthetic ratings than professionals, indicating a potential discrepancy in perceived outcomes. Such differences in nasolabial esthetics evaluations between professionals and laypeople could directly impact revision decisions. Furthermore, Mulder et al³⁵ emphasized the importance of aligning surgical plans with patient expectations, perceptions, and satisfaction. Incorporating patient-reported outcomes such as satisfaction, function, and quality of life could elevate the AMEI from an objective outcome evaluation to a more holistic guide for nasolabial revision decisions. Integrating clinician assessments with patient perspectives will promote a more patient-centered approach to cleft care.

Our findings provide preliminary evidence supporting the predictive value of the AMEI in guiding revision surgery decisions. While the AMEI has traditionally been used to assess nasolabial esthetics, our results indicate that it may also serve as a useful tool for identifying patients who are more likely to be considered for revision surgery. This extends the clinical relevance of the AMEI beyond esthetic assessment, supporting its potential role in anticipating revision needs and potentially contributing to more equitable care for patients with repaired UCLP.

This study is not without limitations. Although the size of this single-center pilot study was relatively small, it provides preliminary data to perform power analyses for future full-scale investigations on the potential use of AMEI in predicting nasolabial revision surgery. There was also an imbalance of samples in both gender and cleft laterality. These disparities reflect the prevalence of cleft lip and palate, affecting more males and the left side at approximately 2:1 ratio.³⁶ Although patients across all severity levels (AMEI scores 1-5) were included, the distribution of scores concentrated around the scores of 2 and 3. Future studies should incorporate a larger sample size with balanced distributions of gender, cleft laterality, and severity to strengthen study design. Moreover, only right-sided lateral photographs were assessed, which may underrepresent left-sided cleft deformities. Therefore, the low predictive capability for both nose and lip revision surgery could potentially be attributed to this underrepresentation. Future studies should include lateral views from the cleft-affected side to improve accuracy and consistency. While three-dimensional imaging demonstrates higher efficacy in reliably assessing nasolabial esthetics,³⁷ its effectiveness is hindered by cost, training requirements, and restricted accessibility.^38,39 As such, two-dimensional photographs remain the most cost-effective and practical option for multicenter comparisons at present.

Conclusion

The AMEI has proven to be a useful tool capable of predicting the need for nose and/or lip revision surgery. Among its components, nasal symmetry and vermilion border exhibited the highest predictive capability for nose and lip revisions, respectively.

Supplemental Material

sj-docx-1-cpc-10.1177_10556656251415230 - Supplemental material for Predictive Capabilities of the Asher-McDade Esthetic Index for Nasolabial Revision Surgery: A Pilot Study

Supplemental material, sj-docx-1-cpc-10.1177_10556656251415230 for Predictive Capabilities of the Asher-McDade Esthetic Index for Nasolabial Revision Surgery: A Pilot Study by Fonthip Tatiyanupanwong, Supatchai Boonpratham, Natchalee Srimaneekarn, Chaiyapol Chaweewannakorn, Yodhathai Satravaha and Supakit Peanchitlertkajorn in The Cleft Palate Craniofacial Journal

Footnotes

Acknowledgements

This research project is supported by the Department of Orthodontics, Faculty of Dentistry, Mahidol University.

ORCID iDs

Fonthip Tatiyanupanwong

Supatchai Boonpratham

Natchalee Srimaneekarn

Chaiyapol Chaweewannakorn

Yodhathai Satravaha

Supakit Peanchitlertkajorn

Ethical Considerations

This study was approved by the Institutional Review Board of the Faculty of Dentistry/Faculty of Pharmacy, Mahidol University (COA No. MU-DT/PY-IRB 2024/058.1909), Bangkok, Thailand, which complies with international guidelines for human research protection, including the Declaration of Helsinki.

Consent to Participate

Written informed consents were obtained from the legal guardian for research purposes.

Consent for Publication

Written informed consent for publication was obtained from the legal guardian for anonymized patient information to be published in this article.

Author Contributions

FT contributed to investigation, data collection, data analysis, visualization, and writing—original draft. SB contributed to formal analysis, resources, and supervision. NS contributed to data analysis and interpretation and validation. CC contributed to data analysis. YS contributed to project administration. SP contributed to conceptualization, data curation, investigation, methodology, validation, supervision, and writing—review and editing.

Funding

The authors received no financial support for the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.

Declaration of Conflicting Interests

The authors declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.

Data Availability

The datasets generated and analyzed during the current study are available from the corresponding author on reasonable request.

Supplemental Material

Supplemental material for this article is available online.

References

Fudalej

Katsaros

Hozyasz

Borstlap

Kuijpers-Jagtman

. Nasolabial symmetry and aesthetics in children with complete unilateral cleft lip and palate. Br J Oral Maxillofac Surg. 2012;50(7):621–625. doi:10.1016/j.bjoms.2011.11.019

Mani

Semb

Andlin-Sobocki

. 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:10.3109/02844311.2010.499671

Sittah

Ghanem

Hamdan

Ramia

Zgheib

. Secondary cleft nasolabial deformities. Cleft Palate Craniofac J. 2018;55(6):837–843. doi:10.1597/16-064

Mølsted

. Treatment outcome in cleft lip and palate: Issues and perspectives. Crit Rev Oral Biol Med. 1999;10(2):225–239. doi:10.1177/10454411990100020801

Cohen

. Residual deformities after repair of clefts of the lip and palate. Clin Plast Surg. 2004;31(2):331–345. doi:10.1016/s0094-1298(03)00133-0

Liu

Wamalwa

Zou

. Craniofacial morphology characteristics of operated unilateral complete cleft lip and palate patients in mixed dentition. Oral Surg Oral Med Oral Pathol Oral Radiol Endodontol. 2011;112(6):e16–e25. doi:10.1016/j.tripleo.2011.04.011

Vegter

Mulder

Hage

. Major residual deformities in cleft patients: A new anthropometric approach. Cleft Palate Craniofac J. 1997;34(2):106–110. doi:10.1597/1545-1569_1997_034_0106_mrdicp_2.3.co_2

Marcusson

Paulin

Ostrup

. 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:10.1080/028443102753478327

Rothermel

Loloi

Long

Jr. Samson

. Patient-centered satisfaction after secondary correction of the cleft lip and nasal defect. Cleft Palate Craniofac J. 2020;57(7):895–899. doi:10.1177/1055665619901183

10.

Brattström

Mølsted

Prahl-Andersen

Semb

Shaw

. The Eurocleft study: Intercenter study of treatment outcome in patients with complete cleft lip and palate. Part 2: Craniofacial form and nasolabial appearance. Cleft Palate Craniofac J. 2005;42(1):69–77. doi:10.1597/02-119.2.1

11.

Trotman

Faraway

Phillips

van Aalst

. Effects of lip revision surgery in cleft lip/palate patients. J Dent Res. 2010;89(7):728–732. doi:10.1177/0022034510365485

12.

Gkantidis

Papamanou

Christou

Topouzelis

. 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:10.1016/j.jcms.2012.11.034

13.

Sitzman

Carle

Lundberg

, Heaton

, Helmrath

, Trotman

, Britto

. Marked variation exists among surgeons and hospitals in the use of secondary cleft lip surgery. Cleft Palate Craniofac J. 2020;57(2):198–207. doi: 10.1177/1055665619880056

14.

Deng

Wang

Zhang

Zhen

Fan

. Deformity and revision rates after secondary unilateral cleft lip rhinoplasty with different cartilage grafts: A systematic review and meta-analysis. J Cranio-Maxillofac Surg. 2025;53(7):873–880. doi:10.1016/j.jcms.2025.02.030

15.

Semb

Brattström

Mølsted

Prahl-Andersen

Shaw

. The Eurocleft study: Intercenter study of treatment outcome in patients with complete cleft lip and palate. Part 1: Introduction and treatment experience. Cleft Palate Craniofac J. 2005;42(1):64–68. doi:10.1597/02-119.1.1

16.

Sitzman

Coyne

Britto

. The burden of care for children with unilateral cleft lip: A systematic review of revision surgery. Cleft Palate Craniofac J. 2016;53(4):84–94. doi:10.1597/14-202

17.

Mercado

Russell

Hathaway

, Daskalogiannakis

, Sadek

, Long

RE Jr

, Cohen

, Semb

, Shaw

. The Americleft study: An inter-center study of treatment outcomes for patients with unilateral cleft lip and palate part 4. Nasolabial aesthetics. Cleft Palate Craniofac J. 2011;48(3):259–264. doi: 10.1597/09-186.1

18.

Sandy

Williams

Mildinhall

, Murphy

, Bearn

, Shaw

, Sell

, Devlin

, Murray

. The clinical standards advisory group (CSAG) cleft lip and palate study. Br J Orthod. 1998;25(1):21–30. doi:10.1093/ortho/25.1.21

19.

Asher-McDade

Roberts

Shaw

Gallager

. Development of a method for rating nasolabial appearance in patients with clefts of the lip and palate. Cleft Palate Craniofac J. 1991;28(4):385–390; discussion 390-1. doi:10.1597/1545-1569_1991_028_0385_doamfr_2.3.co_2

20.

Fudalej

Desmedt

Bronkhorst

Fudalej

. Comparison of three methods of rating nasolabial appearance in cleft lip and palate. Cleft Palate Craniofac J. 2017;54(4):400–407. doi:10.1597/14-189

21.

Mosmuller

Bijnen

Kramer

, Disse

, Prahl

, Kuik

, Niessen

, Don Griot

. The Asher-McDade aesthetic Index in comparison with two scoring systems in nonsyndromic complete unilateral cleft lip and palate patients. J Craniofac Surg. 2015;26(4):1242–1245. doi:10.1097/scs.0000000000001784

22.

Thomson

Azzopardi

Drake

. Validating the Asher-McDade score to assess facial aesthetic outcomes in 22 consecutive complete bilateral cleft lip repairs. Br J Oral Maxillofac Surg. 2021;59(3):375–379. doi:10.1016/j.bjoms.2020.09.001

23.

Chonnapasatid

Viwattanatipa

Manopatanakul

Jaruratanasirikul

. Thai Universal health care coverage scheme promotes the accessibility to cleft lip/palate treatment: The result of cleft care provision assessment using modified geographic information system. BMC Health Serv Res. 2022;22(1):416. doi:10.1186/s12913-022-07784-y

24.

Brook

Shaw

. The development of an index of orthodontic treatment priority. Eur J Orthod. 1989;11(3):309–320. doi:10.1093/oxfordjournals.ejo.a035999

25.

Koo

. A guideline of selecting and reporting intraclass correlation coefficients for reliability research. J Chiropr Med. 2016;15(2):155–163. doi:10.1016/j.jcm.2016.02.012

26.

Hopkins

Dettori

Chapman

. Parametric and nonparametric tests in spine research: Why do they matter? Global Spine J. 2018;8(6):652–654. doi:10.1177/2192568218782679

27.

Kantar

Maliha

Alfonso

, Wang

, Ramly

, Eisemann

, Shetye

, Grayson

, Flores

. Nasolabial aesthetics following cleft repair: An objective evaluation of subjective assessment. Cleft Palate Craniofac J. 2019;56(9):1157–1163. doi:10.1177/1055665619851432

28.

Landis

Koch

. The measurement of observer agreement for categorical data. Biometrics. 1977;33(1):159–174. doi:10.2307/2529310

29.

Metz

. Basic principles of ROC analysis. Semin Nucl Med. 1978;8(4):283–298. doi:10.1016/s0001-2998(78)80014-2

30.

. Assessing the accuracy of diagnostic tests. Shanghai Arch Psychiatry. Jun 25 2018;30(3):207–212. doi:10.11919/j.issn.1002-0829.218052

31.

Youden

. Index for rating diagnostic tests. Cancer. 1950;3(1):32–35. doi:10.1002/1097-0142(1950)3:1<32::aid-cncr2820030106>3.0.co;2-3

32.

Roberts

Semb

Shaw

. Strategies for the advancement of surgical methods in cleft lip and palate. Cleft Palate Craniofac J. 1991;28(2):141–149. doi:10.1597/1545-1569_1991_028_0141_sftaos_2.3.co_2

33.

Trotman

Phillips

Essick

, Faraway

, Barlow

, Losken

, van Aalst

, Rogers

. Functional outcomes of cleft lip surgery. Part I: Study design and surgeon ratings of lip disability and need for lip revision. Cleft Palate Craniofac J. 2007;44(6):598–606. doi:10.1597/06-124.1

34.

Kramer

Gruber

Fialka

Sinikovic

Schliephake

. Quality of life and family functioning in children with nonsyndromic orofacial clefts at preschool ages. J Craniofac Surg. 2008;19(3):580–587. doi:10.1097/SCS.0b013e31816aaa43

35.

Mulder

Mosmuller

DGM

de Vet

Don Griot

JPW

. Aesthetics assessment and patient reported outcome of nasolabial aesthetics in 18-year-old patients with unilateral cleft lip. Cleft Palate Craniofac J. 2019;56(8):1058–1064. doi:10.1177/1055665619832439

36.

Mossey

Little

Munger

Dixon

Shaw

. Cleft lip and palate. Lancet. 2009;374(9703):1773–1785. doi:10.1016/s0140-6736(09)60695-4

37.

Stebel

Desmedt

Bronkhorst

Kuijpers

Fudalej

. Rating nasolabial appearance on three-dimensional images in cleft lip and palate: A comparison with standard photographs. Euro J Orthodont. 2016;38(2):197–201. doi:10.1093/ejo/cjv024

38.

Mosmuller

Griot

Bijnen

Niessen

. Scoring systems of cleft-related facial deformities: A review of literature. Cleft Palate Craniofac J. 2013;50(3):286–296. doi:10.1597/11-207

39.

Sharma

Bella

Cadier

Pigott

Goodacre

Richard

. Outcomes in facial aesthetics in cleft lip and palate surgery: A systematic review. J Plast Reconstr Aesthet Surg. 2012;65(9):1233–1245. doi:10.1016/j.bjps.2012.04.001

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.

0.00 MB

0.02 MB