OBJECTIVE: To compare and evaluate longitudinally the dental arch relationships from 4.5 to 13.5 years of age with the Bauru-BCLP Yardstick in a large sample of patients with bilateral cleft lip and palate (BCLP). DESIGN: Retrospective longitudinal intercenter outcome study. PATIENTS: Dental casts of 204 consecutive patients with complete BCLP were evaluated at 6, 9, and 12 years of age. All models were identified only by random identification numbers. SETTING: Three cleft palate centers with different treatment protocols. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Dental arch relationships were categorized with the Bauru-BCLP yardstick. Increments for each interval (from 6 to 9 years, 6 to 12 years, and 9 to 12 years) were analyzed by logistic and linear regression models. RESULTS: There were no significant differences in outcome measures between the centers at age 12 or at age 9. At age 6, center B showed significantly better results (p=.027), but this difference diminished as the yardstick score for this group increased over time (linear regression analysis), the difference with the reference category (center C, boys) for the intervals 6 to 12 and 9 to 12 years being 10.4% (p=.041) and 12.9% (p=.009), respectively. CONCLUSIONS: Despite different treatment protocols, dental arch relationships in the three centers were comparable in final scores at age 9 and 12 years. Delaying hard palate closure and employing infant orthopedics did not appear to be advantageous in the long run. Premaxillary osteotomy employed in center B appeared to be associated with less favorable development of the dental arch relationship between 9 and 12 years.
OBJECTIVE: To compare and evaluate longitudinally the dental arch relationships from 4.5 to 13.5 years of age with the Bauru-BCLP Yardstick in a large sample of patients with bilateral cleft lip and palate (BCLP). DESIGN: Retrospective longitudinal intercenter outcome study. PATIENTS: Dental casts of 204 consecutive patients with complete BCLP were evaluated at 6, 9, and 12 years of age. All models were identified only by random identification numbers. SETTING: Three cleft palate centers with different treatment protocols. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Dental arch relationships were categorized with the Bauru-BCLP yardstick. Increments for each interval (from 6 to 9 years, 6 to 12 years, and 9 to 12 years) were analyzed by logistic and linear regression models. RESULTS: There were no significant differences in outcome measures between the centers at age 12 or at age 9. At age 6, center B showed significantly better results (p=.027), but this difference diminished as the yardstick score for this group increased over time (linear regression analysis), the difference with the reference category (center C, boys) for the intervals 6 to 12 and 9 to 12 years being 10.4% (p=.041) and 12.9% (p=.009), respectively. CONCLUSIONS: Despite different treatment protocols, dental arch relationships in the three centers were comparable in final scores at age 9 and 12 years. Delaying hard palate closure and employing infant orthopedics did not appear to be advantageous in the long run. Premaxillary osteotomy employed in center B appeared to be associated with less favorable development of the dental arch relationship between 9 and 12 years.