Literature DB >> 20413269

Maxillary distraction versus orthognathic surgery in cleft lip and palate patients: effects on speech and velopharyngeal function.

H D P Chua1, T L Whitehill, N Samman, L K Cheung.   

Abstract

This clinical randomized controlled trial was performed to compare the effects of distraction osteogenesis (DO) and conventional orthognathic surgery (CO) on velopharyngeal function and speech outcomes in cleft lip and palate (CLP) patients. Twenty-one CLP patients who required maxillary advancement ranging from 4 to 10 mm were recruited and randomly assigned to either CO or DO. Evaluation of resonance and nasal emission, nasoendoscopic velopharyngeal assessment and nasometry were performed preoperatively and at a minimum of two postoperative times: 3-8 months (mean 4 months) and 12-29 months (mean 17 months). Results showed no significant differences in speech and velopharyngeal function changes between the two groups. No correlation was found between the amount of advancement and the outcome measures. It was concluded that DO has no advantage over CO for the purpose of preventing velopharyngeal incompetence and speech disturbance in moderate cleft maxillary advancement. Copyright 2010 International Association of Oral and Maxillofacial Surgeons. Published by Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2010        PMID: 20413269     DOI: 10.1016/j.ijom.2010.03.011

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Int J Oral Maxillofac Surg        ISSN: 0901-5027            Impact factor:   2.789


  8 in total

1.  Le fort I maxillary advancement using distraction osteogenesis.

Authors:  Patrick D Combs; Raymond J Harshbarger
Journal:  Semin Plast Surg       Date:  2014-11       Impact factor: 2.314

2.  Maxillary distraction osteogenesis versus orthognathic surgery for cleft lip and palate patients.

Authors:  Dimitrios Kloukos; Piotr Fudalej; Patrick Sequeira-Byron; Christos Katsaros
Journal:  Cochrane Database Syst Rev       Date:  2018-08-10

3.  Perceptual speech assessment after maxillary advancement osteotomy in patients with a repaired cleft lip and palate.

Authors:  Seok-Kwun Kim; Ju-Chan Kim; Ju-Bong Moon; Keun-Cheol Lee
Journal:  Arch Plast Surg       Date:  2012-05-10

Review 4.  Distraction Osteogenesis Versus Orthognathic Surgery: Demystifying Differences in Concepts, Techniques and Outcomes.

Authors:  Manikandhan Ramanathan; Godwin Alex Kiruba; Amelia Christabel; Anantanarayanan Parameswaran; Sanjanaa Kapoor; Hermann F Sailer
Journal:  J Maxillofac Oral Surg       Date:  2020-07-21

Review 5.  Simultaneous options for cleft secondary deformities.

Authors:  Domenico Scopelliti; Flavia Maria Graziana Fatone; Orlando Cipriani; Piero Papi
Journal:  Ann Maxillofac Surg       Date:  2013-07

6.  Initial Experience With a New Intraoral Midface Distraction Device.

Authors:  Fernando Burstein; Magdalena Soldanska; Michael Granger; ChiChi Berhane; Mark Schoemann
Journal:  J Craniofac Surg       Date:  2015-06       Impact factor: 1.046

7.  Protocols in cleft lip and palate treatment: systematic review.

Authors:  Pedro Ribeiro Soares de Ladeira; Nivaldo Alonso
Journal:  Plast Surg Int       Date:  2012-11-01

8.  Cephalometric changes in nasopharyngeal area after anterior maxillary segmental distraction versus Le Fort I osteotomy in patients with cleft lip and palate.

Authors:  Soodeh Tahmasbi; Abdolreza Jamilian; Rahman Showkatbakhsh; Fereydoun Pourdanesh; Mohammad Behnaz
Journal:  Eur J Dent       Date:  2018 Jul-Sep
  8 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.