To compare the dental arch relationships of Turkish patients with complete unilateral cleft lip and palate (UCLP) with the results reported for participants in the Eurocleft study.
Patients
Study models of 109 patients with complete UCLP from five university clinics in Turkey were evaluated (clinic A = 25 patients, clinic B = 23 patients, clinic C = 20 patients, clinic D = 21 patients, and clinic E = 20 patients). The mean age of the patient cohort was nine years old (range = 8–11 years old), and the cohort was born between 1976 and 1990.
Methods
The examiners rated the three-dimensional (3D) models using the GOSLON Yardstick. The scores were compared with those from the Eurocleft centers: E1(B), E2(E), E3(A), E4(F), E5(C), and E6(D). Intra- and interexaminer agreements were evaluated using weighted kappa statistics.
Results
The mean GOSLON scores for the Turkish clinics were as follows: clinic A = 3.16, clinic B = 3.13, clinic C = 3.25, clinic D = 3.67, and clinic E = 3.70. Scores for three of the Turkish clinics (A, B, and C) were significantly worse than the scores for the three best Eurocleft centers, E1(B), E2(E), and E3(A) (P < .001, P < .001, and P < .05, respectively). Scores for two of the Turkish clinics (D and E) were similar to those for Eurocleft center E6(D) but worse than the scores for the other Eurocleft centers (P < .01, P < .001, respectively).
Conclusions
This was the first study in which three-dimensional models were used to derive scores to compare with those of the Eurocleft centers. According to the results of analysis of 109 3D models, 50.4 % of the patients in Turkey were classified as GOSLON score 4 and 5. This may have been attributable to poor surgical procedures, low-volume surgeons, and the decentralized treatment approach in Turkey between 1985 and 2000. Further research is needed to assess the situation in Turkey in more recent years.
Asher-McDadeC.BrattströmV.DahlE.McWilliamJ.MølstedK.PlintD.A.Prahl-AndersenB.SembG.ShawW.C.The RPS. A six-center international study of treatment outcome in patients with clefts of the lip and palate: part 4. Assessment of nasolabial appearance. Cleft Palate Craniofac J.1992; 29: 409–412.
2.
BearnD.MildinhallS.MurphyT.MurrayJ.J.SellD.ShawW.C.WilliamsA.C.SandyJ.R.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 Craniofac J.2001; 38: 38–43.
3.
BerkowitzS.Cleft Lip and Palate.2nd ed.2006. Berlin, Germany: Springer-Verlag.
4.
BrattströmV.McWilliamJ.LarsonO.SembG.Craniofacial development in children with unilateral clefts of the lip, alveolus and palate treated according to four different regimens. I. Maxillary development. Scand J Plast Reconstr Hand Surg.1991; 25: 259–267.
5.
DoganS.OlmezS.SembG.Comparative assessment of dental arch relationships using GOSLON Yardstick in UCLP patients using dental casts, 2D photos and 3D images. Cleft Palate Craniofac J.2012; 49: 347–351.
6.
FudalejP.Hortis-DzierzbickaM.DudkiewiczZ.SembG.Dental arch relationship in children with complete unilateral cleft lip and palate following Warsaw (one-stage repair) and Oslo protocols. Cleft Palate Craniofac J.2009; 46: 648–653.
7.
GarinoF.GarinoG.B.Comparison of dental arch measurements between stone and digital casts. World J Orthod.2002; 3: 250–254.
8.
HathawayR.R.DaskalogiannakisJ.MercadoA.M.RussellK.A.LongR.E.CohenM.SembG.ShawW.C.The Americleft study: an inter-center study of treatment outcomes for patients with unilateral cleft lip and palate. Part 2. Dental arch relationships. Cleft Palate Craniofac J.2011; 48: 244–251.
9.
HathornI.Roberts-HarryD.MarsM.The GOSLON Yardstick applied to a consecutive series of patients with unilateral clefts of the lip and palate. Cleft Palate Craniofac J.1996; 33: 494–496.
10.
KitagawaT.KoharaH.SohmuraT.TakahashiJ.TachimuraT.WadaT.KogoM.Dentoalveolar growth of patients with complete unilateral cleft lip and palate by early two-stage Furlow and push-back method: preliminary results. Cleft Palate Craniofac J.2004; 41: 519–525.
11.
LandisJ.R.KochG.G.The measurement of observer agreement for categorical data. Biometrics.1977; 33: 159–174.
12.
LiaoY.F.HuangC.S.LinI.F.Intraoral photographs for rating dental arch relationships in unilateral cleft lip and palate. Cleft Palate Craniofac J.2009; 46: 415–419.
13.
LiaoY.F.LinI.F.Dental arch relationships after two-flap palatoplasty in Taiwanese patients with unilateral cleft lip and palate. Int J Oral Maxillofac Surg.2009; 38: 1133–1136.
14.
LiljaJ.MarsM.ElanderA.EnocsonL.HagbergC.WorrellE.BatraP.FriedeH.Analysis of dental arch relationships in Swedish unilateral cleft lip and palate subjects: 20-year longitudinal consecutive series treated with delayed hard palate closure. Cleft Palate Craniofac J.2006; 43: 606–611.
15.
LongR.E.JrHathawayR.R.DaskalogiannakisJ.MercadoA.M.RussellK.A.CohenM.SembG.ShawW.C.The Americleft study: an inter-center study of treatment outcomes for patients with unilateral cleft lip and palate. Part 1. Principles and study design. Cleft Palate Craniofac J.2011; 48: 239–244.
16.
LoveR.WaltersM.J.SouthallP.SingerS.GillettD.A.Dental arch relationship outcomes in children with complete unilateral cleft lip and palate, treated at Princess Margaret Hospital for Children, Perth, Western Australia [published online ahead of print January 27, 2011]. Cleft Palate Craniofac J.2011.
17.
MarsM.Asher-McDadeC.BrattströmV.DahlE.McWilliamJ.MølstedK.PlintD.A.Prahl-AndersenB.SembG.ShawW.C.The RPS. A six-center international study of treatment outcome in patients with clefts of the lip and palate: part 3. Dental arch relationships. Cleft Palate Craniofacial J.1992; 29: 405–408.
18.
MarsM.BatraP.WorrellE.Complete unilateral cleft lip and palate: validity of the five-year index and the GOSLON Yardstick in predicting long-term dental arch relationships. Cleft Palate Craniofac J.2006; 43: 557–562.
19.
MarsM.PlintD.A.HoustonW.J.BerglandO.SembG.The GOSLON Yardstick: a new system of assessing dental arch relationships in children with unilateral clefts of the lip and palate. Cleft Palate J.1987; 24: 314–322.
20.
MølstedK.Asher-McDadeC.BrattstromV.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: 398.
21.
MorrisD.O.Roberts-HarryD.MarsM.Dental arch relationships in Yorkshire children with unilateral cleft lip and palate. Cleft Palate Craniofac J.2000; 37: 453–462.
22.
NolletP.KatsarosC.van't HofM.A.BongaartsC.A.M.SembG.ShawW.C.Kuijpers-JagtmanA.M.Photographs of study casts: an alternative medium for rating dental arch relationships in unilateral cleft lip and Plate. Cleft Palate Craniofac J.2004; 41: 646–650.
23.
NolletP.J.KatsarosC.Van't HofM.A.Kuijpers-JagtmanA.M.Treatment outcome in unilateral cleft lip and palate evaluated with the GOSLON yardstick: a meta-analysis of 1236 patients. Plast Reconstr Surg.2005; 116: 1255–1262.
24.
OzawaT.O.ShawW.C.KatsarosC.Kuijpers-JagtmanA.M.HagbergC.RønningE.SembG.A new yardstick for rating dental arch relationship in patients with complete bilateral cleft lip and palate. Cleft Palate Craniofac J.2011; 48: 167–172.
25.
RossR.B.Treatment variables affecting facial growth in complete unilateral cleft lip and palate. Cleft Palate J.1987; 24: 5–77.
26.
ShawW.C.Asher-McDadeC.BrattströmV.DahlE.McWilliamJ.MolstedK.PlintD.A.Prahl-AndersenB.SembG.The RP. A six-center international study of treatment outcome in patients with clefts of the lip and palate: part 1. Principles and study design. Cleft Palate. Craniofac J.1992a; 29: 393–397.
27.
ShawW.C.BrattströmV.MolstedK.Prahl-AndersenB.RobertsC.T.SembG.The Eurocleft study: intercenter study of treatment outcome in patients with complete cleft lip and palate. Part 5: discussion and conclusions. Cleft Palate Craniofac J.2005; 42: 93–98.
28.
ShawW.C.DahlE.Asher-McDadeC.BrattströmV.MarsM.McWilliamJ.MolstedK.PlintD.A.Prahl-AndersenB.RobertsC.A six-center international study of treatment outcome in patients with clefts of the lip and palate: part 5. General discussion and conclusions cleft palate. Craniofac J.1992b; 29: 413–418.
29.
SinkoK.CaacbayE.JagschR.TurhaniD.BaumannA.MarsM.The GOSLON yardstick in patients with unilateral cleft lip and palate: review of a Vienna sample. Cleft Palate Craniofac J.2008; 45: 87–92.
30.
SusamiT.OgiharaY.MatsuzakiM.SakiyamaM.TakatoT.ShawW.C.SembG.Assessment of dental arch relationships in Japanese patients with unilateral cleft lip and palate. Cleft Palate Craniofac J.2006; 43: 96–102.
31.
WilliamsA.C.BearnD.MildinhallS.MurphyT.SellD.ShawW.C.MurrayJ.J.SandyJ.R.Cleft lip and palate care in the United Kingdom-the Clinical Standards Advisory Group (CSAG) Study. Part 2: dentofacial outcomes and patient satisfaction. [see comment]. Cleft Palate Craniofac J.2001; 38: 24–29.
32.
ZreaqatM.HassanR.HalimA.S.Dentoalveolar relationships of Malay children with unilateral cleft lip and palate. Cleft Palate Craniofac. J.2009; 46: 326–330.
