PROBLEM: What kind of skeletal differences do exist between juvenile patients with unilateral cleft lip, alveolus and palate treated with or without secondary osteoplasty, and between cleft patients and non-cleft patients? PATIENTS AND METHODS: Thirty-nine patients with unilateral cleft lip, alveolus and palate at a mean age of 15.8 years who were surgically treated with (n = 18) and without (n 21) secondary osteoplasty were compared with a control group of non-cleft patients (mean age 15.1 years). The patients were analyzed using lateral cephalograms. Cephalometric analysis included common sagittal and vertical variables as well as measurements of anterior tooth position and soft-tissue profile. RESULTS: Analysis of lateral cephalograms revealed no significant differences between the two groups of cleft patients. The differences in comparison with the control group mainly revealed maxillary retroposition, a vertically open configuration, a steep position of the upper and lower anterior teeth and a decreased Holdaway-angle (flat midface). CONCLUSION: Secondary osteoplasty exhibited no significant influence on craniofacial growth in children with unilateral cleft lip and palate. Both groups of cleft patients are not markedly different regarding sagittal and vertical skeletal configurations.
PROBLEM: What kind of skeletal differences do exist between juvenile patients with unilateral cleft lip, alveolus and palate treated with or without secondary osteoplasty, and between cleftpatients and non-cleftpatients? PATIENTS AND METHODS: Thirty-nine patients with unilateral cleft lip, alveolus and palate at a mean age of 15.8 years who were surgically treated with (n = 18) and without (n 21) secondary osteoplasty were compared with a control group of non-cleftpatients (mean age 15.1 years). The patients were analyzed using lateral cephalograms. Cephalometric analysis included common sagittal and vertical variables as well as measurements of anterior tooth position and soft-tissue profile. RESULTS: Analysis of lateral cephalograms revealed no significant differences between the two groups of cleftpatients. The differences in comparison with the control group mainly revealed maxillary retroposition, a vertically open configuration, a steep position of the upper and lower anterior teeth and a decreased Holdaway-angle (flat midface). CONCLUSION: Secondary osteoplasty exhibited no significant influence on craniofacial growth in children with unilateral cleft lip and palate. Both groups of cleftpatients are not markedly different regarding sagittal and vertical skeletal configurations.