To compare dental arch dimensions of children in the primary dentition with repaired unilateral clefts of the lip and palate (UCLP) to a noncleft group of a similar age and determine how the dimensions of the cleft arches relate to an index of treatment outcome.
Method
Dental study casts of 44 5- to 6-year-olds with complete UCLP (22 boys and 22 girls) from a single center, whose primary surgery had been carried out by one surgeon, were matched for age, sex, and ethnicity with dental study casts from a longitudinal growth study. Analysis of variance was used to ascertain differences in arch dimensions between the two groups. The cleft group casts were then assessed with an established index of surgical outcome, the 5-year-old index. Spearman's rank correlation coefficient was used to see how the arch dimensions of the cleft group related to the categories of the index.
Results and Conclusions
Maxillary arch dimensions were significantly smaller in the cleft group than in the noncleft group, irrespective of sex (p < .05). In the mandibular arch, there was no difference between the cleft and noncleft groups (p > .05). Maxillary arch dimensions of the cleft group correlated significantly with the 5-year-old index for arch length and intercanine width (p < .05) but not intermolar width (p = .842). This would suggest that the 5-year-old index is a suitable tool for assessing the outcome of treatment in the primary dentition for anteroposterior and anterior transverse arch dimensions.
AtackN.E., HathornI., DowellT., SandyJ., SembG., LeachA.. Early detection of differences in surgical outcome for cleft lip and palate.Br J Orthod.1998; 25: 181–185.
3.
AtackN., HathornI., MarsM., SandyJ.. Study models of 5 year old children as predictors of surgical outcome in unilateral cleft lip and palate.Eur J Orthod.1997a; 19: 165–170.
4.
AtackN.E., HathornI.S., SembG., DowellT., SandyJ.R.. A new index for assessing surgical outcome in unilateral cleft lip and palate subjects aged five: reproducibility and validity.Cleft Palate Craniofac J.1997b; 34: 242–246.
5.
AthanasiouA.E., MazaheriM., ZarrinniaK.. Dental arch dimensions in patients with unilateral cleft lip and palate.Cleft Palate J.1988; 25: 139–145.
6.
BhatiaS.N., LeightonB.C.. A Manual of Facial Growth.Oxford: Oxford University Press;1993
7.
BlandJ.M., AltmanD.G.. Statistical methods for assessing agreement between two methods of clinical measurement.Lancet.1986; 1: 307–311.
8.
Capelozza JuniorL., TaniguchiS.M., da Silva JuniorO.G.. Craniofacial morphology of adult unoperated complete unilateral cleft lip and palate patients.Cleft Palate Craniofac J.1993; 30: 376–381.
9.
da Silva FilhoO.G., RamosA.L., AbdoR.C.C.. The influence of unilateral cleft lip and palate on maxillary dental arch morphology.Angle Orthod.1992; 62: 283–290.
10.
HathawayR.R., EppleyB.L., HennonD.K., NelsonC.L., SadoveA.M.. Primary alveolar cleft bone grafting in unilateral cleft lip and palate: arch dimensions at age 8 years.J Craniofac Surg.1999; 10: 59–67.
11.
HondaY., SuzukiA., OhishiM., TasiroH.. Longitudinal study on the changes of maxillary arch dimension in Japanese children with cleft lip and/or palate: infancy to 4 years of age.Cleft Palate Craniofac J.1995; 32: 149–155.
12.
HuddartA.G., BodenhamR.S.. The evaluation of arch form and occlusion in unilateral cleft palate subjects.Cleft Palate J.1972; 9: 194–209.
13.
JoosU.. Skeletal growth after muscular reconstruction for cleft lip, alveolus and palateBr J Oral Maxillofac Surg.1995; 33: 139–144.
14.
KnottV.B.. Longitudinal study of dental arch widths at four stages of dentition.Angle Orthod.1972; 42: 387–394.
15.
KramerG.J.C., HokesmaJ.B., Prahl-AndersonB.. Early palatal changes after initial palatal surgery in children with cleft lip and palate.Cleft Palate Craniofac J.1996; 33: 104–111.
16.
LeenstraT.S., KuijpersA.M., MalthaJ.C., FreihoferH.P.M.. Palatal surgery without denudation of bone favours dentoalveolar development in dogs.Int J Oral Maxillofac Surg.1995; 24: 440–441.
17.
MarkusA.F., PreciousD.S.. Effect of primary surgery for cleft lip and palate on mid-facial growth.Br J Oral Maxillofac Surg.1997; 35: 6–10.
18.
MarsM., Asher-McDadeC., BrattstromV., DahlE., McWilliamJ., MolstedK., PlintD.A., Prahl-AndersenB., SembG., ShawW.C.. A six-center international study of treatment outcome in patients with clefts of the lip and palate: part 3. Dental arch relationships.Cleft Palate Craniofac J.1992; 29: 405–408.
19.
MarsM., HoustonW.J.. A preliminary study of facial growth and morphology in unoperated male unilateral cleft lip and palate subjects over 13 years of age.Cleft Palate J.1990; 27: 7–10.
20.
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.
21.
MeredithH.V., HoppW.M.. A longitudinal study of dental arch width at the deciduous second molars on children 4 to 8 years of age.J Dent Res1956; 35: 879–889.
22.
MooreesC.F.A.. The Dentition of the Growing Child: A Longitudinal Study of Dental Development Between 3 and 18 Years of Age.Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press;1959: 199–210.
23.
MooreesCFA., GrenA., LebretL.M., YenP.K.J., FrohlichF.J.. Growth studies of the dentition: a review.Am J Orthod.1969; 55: 600–616.
24.
MorrisT., RobertsC., ShawW.C.. Incisal overjet as an outcome measure in unilateral cleft lip and palate management.Cleft Palate Craniofac J.1994; 31: 142–145.
25.
MurrayJ.. Cleft Lip and/or Palate.London: Clinical Standards Advisory Group, Department of Health, Stationary Office;1998.
26.
NystromM., RantaR.. Sizes of dental arches and interdental space in 3-year old children with and without cleft lip/palate.Eur J Orthod.1989; 11: 82–88.
27.
Roberts-HarryD., SembG., HathornI., KillingbackN.. Facial growth in patients with unilateral clefts of the lip and palate: a two-center study.Cleft Palate Craniofac J.1996; 33: 489–493.
28.
RobertsonN.R.E., FishJ.. Early dimensional changes in the arches of cleft palate children.Am J Orthod.1975; 67: 291–303.
29.
RossR.B.. Treatment variables affecting facial growth in complete unilateral cleft lip and palate. Part 1–7 Cleft Palate J.1987; 24: 5–77.
30.
ShawW.C., Asher-McDadeC., BrattstromV., DahlE., McWilliamJ., MolstedK., PlintD.A., Prahl-AndersenB., SembG., TheR.P.. 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.
31.
ShawW.C., DahlE., Asher-McDadeC., BrattstromV., 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.
32.
SillmanJ.H.. Dimensional changes of the dental arches: longitudinal study from birth to 25 years.Am J Orthod.1964; 50: 824–842.
33.
WadaT., MizokawaN., MiyazakiT., ErgenG.. Maxillary dental arch growth in different types of cleft.Cleft Palate J.1984; 21: 180–192.
34.
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.Cleft Palate Craniofac J.2001; 38: 24–29.
