Literature DB >> 1472518

A six-center international study of treatment outcome in patients with clefts of the lip and palate: Part 4. Assessment of nasolabial appearance.

C Asher-McDade1, V Brattström, E Dahl, J McWilliam, K Mølsted, D A Plint, B Prahl-Andersen, G Semb, W C Shaw, R P The.   

Abstract

One hundred and fifteen frontal and profile photographs of the nasolabial area of subjects with complete unilateral clefts of the lip and palate from six European centers were assessed. Four components of the nasolabial area were rated separately by a panel of judges using a five-point scale of attractiveness. The Tukey multiple comparison test showed significant differences between the centers. The relative position of the six centers in this study followed a similar pattern to their respective positions in the cephalometric and dental cast studies.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  1992        PMID: 1472518     DOI: 10.1597/1545-1569_1992_029_0409_asciso_2.3.co_2

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Cleft Palate Craniofac J        ISSN: 1055-6656


  25 in total

1.  Nasal appearance after secondary cleft rhinoplasty: comparison of professional rating with patient satisfaction.

Authors:  Niels Christian Pausch; Carolin Unger; Poramate Pitak-Arnnop; Keskanya Subbalekha
Journal:  Oral Maxillofac Surg       Date:  2016-04-22

2.  Rating nasolabial appearance on three-dimensional images in cleft lip and palate: a comparison with standard photographs.

Authors:  Adam Stebel; Dries Desmedt; Ewald Bronkhorst; Mette A Kuijpers; Piotr S Fudalej
Journal:  Eur J Orthod       Date:  2015-04-21       Impact factor: 3.075

3.  Long-Term Effect of Maxillary Distraction Osteogenesis (DO) on Nasal Index in Adult Patients with Cleft Lip and Palate Deformities.

Authors:  Ashok Kumar Jena; Vidya Rattan; Satinder Pal Singh; Ashok Kumar Utreja; Singh Sombir
Journal:  J Maxillofac Oral Surg       Date:  2015-04-28

4.  Aesthetic evaluation of the nasolabial region in children with unilateral cleft lip and palate comparing expert versus nonexperience health professionals.

Authors:  Tatiana Saito Paiva; Marcia Andre; Wellingson Silva Paiva; Beatriz Silva Camara Mattos
Journal:  Biomed Res Int       Date:  2014-07-13       Impact factor: 3.411

5.  The effects of lip revision surgery on nasolabial esthetics in patients with cleft lip.

Authors:  A M Mercado; C Phillips; K W L Vig; C-A Trotman
Journal:  Orthod Craniofac Res       Date:  2014-05-20       Impact factor: 1.826

6.  Active Presurgical Infant Orthopedics for Unilateral Cleft Lip and Palate: Intercenter Outcome Comparison of Latham, Modified McNeil, and Nasoalveolar Molding.

Authors:  Michelle Kornbluth; Richard E Campbell; John Daskalogiannakis; Elizabeth J Ross; Patricia H Glick; Kathleen A Russell; Jean-Charles Doucet; Ronald R Hathaway; Ross E Long; Thomas J Sitzman
Journal:  Cleft Palate Craniofac J       Date:  2018-02-20

7.  Marked Variation Exists Among Surgeons and Hospitals in the Use of Secondary Cleft Lip Surgery.

Authors:  Thomas J Sitzman; Adam C Carle; Jaclyn N Lundberg; Pamela C Heaton; Michael A Helmrath; Carroll-Ann Trotman; Maria T Britto
Journal:  Cleft Palate Craniofac J       Date:  2019-10-09

8.  Surgical outcomes auditing systems in humanitarian organizations.

Authors:  Luis Bermudez; Victoria Carter; William Magee; Randy Sherman; Ruben Ayala
Journal:  World J Surg       Date:  2010-03       Impact factor: 3.352

9.  Assessment of deformities of the lip and nose in cleft lip alveolus and palate patients by a rating scale.

Authors:  B R Rajanikanth; Krishna Shama Rao; S M Sharma; B Rajendra Prasad
Journal:  J Maxillofac Oral Surg       Date:  2011-10-18

10.  Clinicians and laypeople assessment of facial attractiveness in patients with cleft lip and palate treated with LeFort I surgery or late maxillary protraction.

Authors:  Eun Hee Chung; Ali Borzabadi-Farahani; Stephen L-K Yen
Journal:  Int J Pediatr Otorhinolaryngol       Date:  2013-07-18       Impact factor: 1.675

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.