Objectives: Investigate associations between cleft laterality in patients with non-syndromic unilateral cleft lip and palate (UCLP) and oral-health, dental-arch, speech, audiological, psychological and nasolabial-aesthetic outcomes.
Methods: Secondary data analysis of the outcomes of 5-year-old children with non-syndromic complete UCLP identified from three studies: Cleft Collective (n = 155), Cleft Care UK (CCUK) (n = 266) and Clinical Standards Advisory Group (CSAG) study (n = 238). Outcome measures included occlusal assessment using the 5-year-old's index score, speech intelligibility rating using the CAPS-A Audit tool, audiological assessment using pure tone audiometry, nasolabial aesthetic assessment using the Asher-McDade tool, oral-health assessment using decayed, missing, filled teeth scores and parent-reported outcomes. Logistic regression with adjustment for age, sex and index-of-multiple-deprivation scores were performed.
Results: No differences were found in patient-reported outcomes between the left and right clefts in the Cleft Collective study. From the CCUK study, right clefts had poorer speech (n = 236; 95% CI 1.09, 3.42; and P = .03) and hearing outcomes (n = 211; 95% CI 1.03, 3.43; P = .04). In the CSAG study, patients with left clefts were more likely to be teased (n = 213; 95% CI 0.26, 0.85; and P = .01).
Conclusion: Weak associations between cleft laterality, speech, hearing and psychological outcomes were found, however the findings were inconsistent across the studies. This study contributes to evidence of associations between laterality and outcomes in children born with UCLP.
Download full-text PDF |
Source |
---|---|
http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/ocr.12747 | DOI Listing |
Cleft Palate Craniofac J
January 2025
Department of Orthodontics, Faculty of Dentistry, Izmir Katip Celebi University, Izmir, Turkey.
Objective: The aim of the present research was to assess and compare the piriform aperture dimensions of subjects with a unilateral cleft lip and palate (UCLP) and those of a control group using cone-beam computed tomography (CBCT).
Design: CBCT data of 40 subjects with a complete UCLP (28 males and 12 females, with a mean age of 17.21 ± 5.
Cleft Palate Craniofac J
January 2025
Hospital of Craniofacial Anomalies Rehabilitation, University of São Paulo, Bauru, Brazil.
Objective: To compare the oral hygiene and gingival health of children with and without cleft lip and palate.
Design: Cross-sectional comparative study.
Setting: Institutional tertiary referral hospital.
Cleft Palate Craniofac J
January 2025
Division of Plastic, Reconstructive and Oral Surgery, Children's Hospital of Philadelphia, Philadelphia, PA, USA.
The decision to undertake rhinoplasty maneuvers during cleft lip repair remains controversial. Little data compare long-term outcomes with and without primary rhinoplasty (PR). This study compared nasolabial outcomes in cohorts with unilateral cleft lip (UCL) treated with and without PR at the Children's Hospital of Philadelphia using standardized aesthetic and anthropometric assessments.
View Article and Find Full Text PDFDiagnostics (Basel)
December 2024
Department of Orthodontics, Faculty of Dentistry, Yeditepe University, Istanbul 34728, Turkey.
Cleft lip and palate patients often present with unique anatomical challenges, making dental anomaly detection and numbering particularly complex. The accurate identification of teeth in these patients is crucial for effective treatment planning and long-term management. Artificial intelligence (AI) has emerged as a promising tool for enhancing diagnostic precision, yet its application in this specific patient population remains underexplored.
View Article and Find Full Text PDFOdontology
January 2025
Department of Pediatric Dentistry, Hospital for Rehabilitation of Craniofacial Anomalies, University of São Paulo, Bauru, São Paulo, Brazil.
This study aimed to compare the dimensional alterations of the dental arches and the palate symmetry in patients with unilateral complete cleft lip and palate before and after the performance of primary surgeries by different surgical techniques. The sample was divided into Group 1, G1 - cheiloplasty (Millard technique) and single-stage palatoplasty (von Langenbeck technique); Group 2, G2 - cheiloplasty (Millard technique) and two-stage palatoplasty (Hans Pichler and Sommerlad techniques). The digital dental models were evaluated before (Time 1, T1) and after (Time 2, T2) primary surgeries.
View Article and Find Full Text PDFEnter search terms and have AI summaries delivered each week - change queries or unsubscribe any time!