Literature DB >> 23311658

Facial esthetics in children with unilateral cleft lip and palate 3 years after alveolar bonegrafting combined with rhinoplasty between 2 and 4 years of age.

B Offert1, J Janiszewska-Olszowska, Z Dudkiewicz, A Brudnicki, C Katsaros, P S Fudalej.   

Abstract

OBJECTIVES: To evaluate facial esthetics in patients with unilateral cleft lip and palate (UCLP) after alveolar bone grafting combined with rhinoplasty between 2 and 4 years of age.
DESIGN: Retrospective case-control study.
SETTING: The Department of Pediatric Surgery, Institute of Mother and Child, Warsaw, Poland.
MATERIAL AND METHODS: Photographs of full faces and cropped images of five nasolabial components: nasal deviation, nasal form, nasal profile, vermillion border, and inferior view were assessed by 5 professional and 14 layraters in 29 children (23 boys and 6 girls; mean age = 5.3 years, SD 0.5; Early-grafted group) and 30 children (20 boys and 10 girls; mean age = 5.5 years, SD 1.0; Non-grafted group) with complete unilateral cleft lip and palate repaired with a one-stage closure. The groups differed regarding the timing of alveolar bone grafting: in the Early-grafted group, alveolar bone grafting in combination with rhinoplasty (ABG-R) was performed between 2 and 4 years of age (mean age = 2.3 years; SD 0.6); in the Non-grafted group, the alveolar defect was grafted after 9 years of age. No primary nose correction was carried out in any group. To rate esthetics, a modified five-grade esthetic index of Asher-McDade was used, where grade 1 means the most esthetic and grade 5 - the least esthetic outcome.
RESULTS: Esthetics of full faces and of all nasolabial elements in the Early-grafted group was significantly better than in Non-grafted group. The scores in the Early-grafted group ranged from 2.30 to 2.66 points, whereas in the Non-grafted group ranged from 2.66 to 3.17 points. All intergroup differences were statistically significant (p < 0.05).
CONCLUSIONS: Three years post-operatively, early alveolar bone grafting combined with rhinoplasty is favorable for facial esthetics in children with UCLP, but a longer follow-up is needed to assess whether the improvement was permanent.
© 2012 John Wiley & Sons A/S.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2012        PMID: 23311658     DOI: 10.1111/ocr.12002

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Orthod Craniofac Res        ISSN: 1601-6335            Impact factor:   1.826


  4 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.  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

3.  Comparison of professional and laypeople evaluation of nasolabial esthetics following unilateral cleft lip repair.

Authors:  Adekunle Moses Adetayo; Modupe Olusola Adetayo; Oguntade Funmi A; Mayowa Solomon Somoye; Michael O Adeyemi; Wasiu Lanre Adeyemo
Journal:  Eur J Dent       Date:  2018 Oct-Dec

4.  The Slavcleft: a three-center study of the outcome of treatment of cleft lip and palate. Nasolabial appearance.

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

  4 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.