OBJECTIVE: To summarize the Americleft study regarding treatment outcomes for patients with complete unilateral cleft lip and palate (CUCLP). SETTING: Five cleft palate centers in North America. SUBJECTS: One hundred sixty-nine subjects, between the ages of 6 years and 12 years, with repaired CUCLP who were consecutively treated at the five centers. METHODS: Study consisted of model comparisons assessing maxillomandibular relationship using the GOSLON Yardstick (169 patients from all 5 centers), soft and hard tissue craniofacial morphologic comparisons using lateral cephalometric analyses (148 patients from four of the centers), and nasolabial esthetics assessments (125 patients from four of the centers). RESULTS: Significant differences were found between the center with the best GOSLON scores and the remaining centers. These differences also corresponded to those found in the craniofacial morphologic cephalometric assessment. Sagittal maxillary prominence was found to be significantly better for the center with the best GOSLON scores, while no significant differences were seen among the centers for mandibular prominence, vertical dimensions, or dental inclinations. No differences were seen for nasolabial esthetics between the centers. CONCLUSIONS: Challenges experienced while undertaking the inter-center retrospective study are reviewed. Aspects of treatment that could potentially make the outcome of treatment less optimal included primary alveolar bone grafting and extensive treatment protocols. Differences in the outcomes identified between the centers were restricted to the maxilla, and no differences were identified for mandibular prominence, vertical dimensions, or dental inclinations.
OBJECTIVE: To summarize the Americleft study regarding treatment outcomes for patients with complete unilateral cleft lip and palate (CUCLP). SETTING: Five cleft palate centers in North America. SUBJECTS: One hundred sixty-nine subjects, between the ages of 6 years and 12 years, with repaired CUCLP who were consecutively treated at the five centers. METHODS: Study consisted of model comparisons assessing maxillomandibular relationship using the GOSLON Yardstick (169 patients from all 5 centers), soft and hard tissue craniofacial morphologic comparisons using lateral cephalometric analyses (148 patients from four of the centers), and nasolabial esthetics assessments (125 patients from four of the centers). RESULTS: Significant differences were found between the center with the best GOSLON scores and the remaining centers. These differences also corresponded to those found in the craniofacial morphologic cephalometric assessment. Sagittal maxillary prominence was found to be significantly better for the center with the best GOSLON scores, while no significant differences were seen among the centers for mandibular prominence, vertical dimensions, or dental inclinations. No differences were seen for nasolabial esthetics between the centers. CONCLUSIONS: Challenges experienced while undertaking the inter-center retrospective study are reviewed. Aspects of treatment that could potentially make the outcome of treatment less optimal included primary alveolar bone grafting and extensive treatment protocols. Differences in the outcomes identified between the centers were restricted to the maxilla, and no differences were identified for mandibular prominence, vertical dimensions, or dental inclinations.
Authors: Montserrat Caballero; Donna C Jones; Zhengyuan Shan; Sajjad Soleimani; John A van Aalst Journal: Tissue Eng Part C Methods Date: 2017-08-31 Impact factor: 3.056
Authors: Todd C Edwards; Carrie L Heike; Kathleen A Kapp-Simon; Salene M Jones; Brian G Leroux; Laura P Stueckle; Claudia Crilly Bellucci; Janine M Rosenberg; Meredith Albert; Cassandra L Aspinall; Donald L Patrick Journal: Cleft Palate Craniofac J Date: 2021-09-13
Authors: Kathie H Wang; Carrie L Heike; Melissa D Clarkson; Jose L V Mejino; James F Brinkley; Raymond W Tse; Craig B Birgfeld; David A Fitzsimons; Timothy C Cox Journal: Front Physiol Date: 2014-05-14 Impact factor: 4.566
Authors: P Priyanka Niranjane; R H Kamble; S Pallavi Diagavane; S Sunita Shrivastav; Puneet Batra; S D Vasudevan; Pushkar Patil Journal: Indian J Plast Surg Date: 2014 Sep-Dec
Authors: Isabelle Citron; Ingrid Ganske; Benjamin B Massenburg; Michael Doyle; John G Meara; Carolyn R Rogers-Vizena Journal: Plast Reconstr Surg Glob Open Date: 2018-08-16
Authors: Thomas J Sitzman; Constance A Mara; Ross E Long; John Daskalogiannakis; Kathleen A Russell; Ana M Mercado; Ronald R Hathaway; Adam C Carle; Gunvor Semb; William C Shaw Journal: Plast Reconstr Surg Glob Open Date: 2015-08-10
Authors: Adam Stebel; Wanda Urbanová; Irena Klimova; Andrzej Brudnicki; Ivana Dubovska; Petra Polackova; Daniela Kroupová; Magdalena Koťová; Piotr S Fudalej Journal: PeerJ Date: 2021-02-09 Impact factor: 2.984
Authors: Inge Apon; Carolyn R Rogers-Vizena; Maarten J Koudstaal; Alexander C Allori; Petra Peterson; Sarah L Versnel; Jessily P Ramirez Journal: Cleft Palate Craniofac J Date: 2021-03-05