Tags

Type your tag names separated by a space and hit enter

Nasolabial appearance after two palatoplasty types in cleft lip and palate.
Orthod Craniofac Res. 2014 May; 17(2):124-31.OC

Abstract

BACKGROUND

Facial appearance is important for normal psychosocial development in children with cleft lip and palate (CLP). There is conflicting evidence on how deficient maxillary growth may affect nasolabial esthetics.

METHODS

We retrospectively investigated nasolabial appearance in two groups, the Langenback (35 children; mean age 11.1 years; range: 7.9-13.6) and Vomerplasty (58 children; mean age 10.8 years; range: 7.8-14), who received unilateral CLP surgery by the same surgeon. The hard palate repair technique differed between the two groups. In the Langenback group, palatal bone on the non-cleft side only was left denuded, inducing scar formation and inhibiting maxillary growth. In the Vomerplasty group, a vomerplasty with tight closure of the soft tissues on the palate was applied. Thirteen lay judges rated nasolabial esthetics on photographs using a modified Asher-McDade's index.

RESULTS

Nasolabial esthetics in both groups was comparable (p > 0.1 for each nasolabial component). Inferior view was judged as the least esthetic component and demonstrated mean scores 3.18 (SD = 0.63) and 3.13 (SD = 0.47) in the Langenback and Vomerplasty groups, respectively. Mean scores for other components were from 2.52 (SD = 0.63) to 2.81 (SD = 0.62). Regression analysis showed that vomerplasty is related with slight improvement in the nasal profile only (coefficient B = -0.287; p = 0.043; R(2) = 0.096).

CONCLUSIONS

This study demonstrates that the use of vomerplasty instead of the Langenbeck technique is weakly associated with the nasolabial appearance among pre-adolescent patients with UCLP.

Authors+Show Affiliations

Department of Pediatric Surgery, Institute of Mother and Child, Warsaw, Poland.No affiliation info availableNo affiliation info availableNo affiliation info availableNo affiliation info availableNo affiliation info availableNo affiliation info available

Pub Type(s)

Journal Article

Language

eng

PubMed ID

24417872

Citation

Brudnicki, A, et al. "Nasolabial Appearance After Two Palatoplasty Types in Cleft Lip and Palate." Orthodontics & Craniofacial Research, vol. 17, no. 2, 2014, pp. 124-31.
Brudnicki A, Bronkhorst EM, Nada R, et al. Nasolabial appearance after two palatoplasty types in cleft lip and palate. Orthod Craniofac Res. 2014;17(2):124-31.
Brudnicki, A., Bronkhorst, E. M., Nada, R., Dudkiewicz, Z., Kaminek, M., Katsaros, C., & Fudalej, P. S. (2014). Nasolabial appearance after two palatoplasty types in cleft lip and palate. Orthodontics & Craniofacial Research, 17(2), 124-31. https://doi.org/10.1111/ocr.12039
Brudnicki A, et al. Nasolabial Appearance After Two Palatoplasty Types in Cleft Lip and Palate. Orthod Craniofac Res. 2014;17(2):124-31. PubMed PMID: 24417872.
* Article titles in AMA citation format should be in sentence-case
TY - JOUR T1 - Nasolabial appearance after two palatoplasty types in cleft lip and palate. AU - Brudnicki,A, AU - Bronkhorst,E M, AU - Nada,R, AU - Dudkiewicz,Z, AU - Kaminek,M, AU - Katsaros,C, AU - Fudalej,P S, Y1 - 2014/01/13/ PY - 2013/12/07/accepted PY - 2014/1/15/entrez PY - 2014/1/15/pubmed PY - 2014/12/31/medline KW - appearance KW - cleft palate KW - esthetics KW - nasolabial KW - one-stage repair KW - palate repair KW - palatoplasty KW - unilateral cleft lip and palate KW - vomerplasty SP - 124 EP - 31 JF - Orthodontics & craniofacial research JO - Orthod Craniofac Res VL - 17 IS - 2 N2 - BACKGROUND: Facial appearance is important for normal psychosocial development in children with cleft lip and palate (CLP). There is conflicting evidence on how deficient maxillary growth may affect nasolabial esthetics. METHODS: We retrospectively investigated nasolabial appearance in two groups, the Langenback (35 children; mean age 11.1 years; range: 7.9-13.6) and Vomerplasty (58 children; mean age 10.8 years; range: 7.8-14), who received unilateral CLP surgery by the same surgeon. The hard palate repair technique differed between the two groups. In the Langenback group, palatal bone on the non-cleft side only was left denuded, inducing scar formation and inhibiting maxillary growth. In the Vomerplasty group, a vomerplasty with tight closure of the soft tissues on the palate was applied. Thirteen lay judges rated nasolabial esthetics on photographs using a modified Asher-McDade's index. RESULTS: Nasolabial esthetics in both groups was comparable (p > 0.1 for each nasolabial component). Inferior view was judged as the least esthetic component and demonstrated mean scores 3.18 (SD = 0.63) and 3.13 (SD = 0.47) in the Langenback and Vomerplasty groups, respectively. Mean scores for other components were from 2.52 (SD = 0.63) to 2.81 (SD = 0.62). Regression analysis showed that vomerplasty is related with slight improvement in the nasal profile only (coefficient B = -0.287; p = 0.043; R(2) = 0.096). CONCLUSIONS: This study demonstrates that the use of vomerplasty instead of the Langenbeck technique is weakly associated with the nasolabial appearance among pre-adolescent patients with UCLP. SN - 1601-6343 UR - https://www.unboundmedicine.com/medline/citation/24417872/Nasolabial_appearance_after_two_palatoplasty_types_in_cleft_lip_and_palate_ L2 - https://doi.org/10.1111/ocr.12039 DB - PRIME DP - Unbound Medicine ER -