AIM: To compare maxillary development of individuals with unilateral cleft lip and palate (CLP) to individuals with skeletal Class I and Class III malocclusions. STUDY DESIGN: Cephalometric X-ray films from 90 patients (mean age: 13 ± 2.3 years) were used. The number of samples was determined by Power analysis and three groups consisting of 30 patients (Group 1: Skeletal Class I, Group 2: Skeletal Class III, Group 3: CLP) were formed. A total of 13 cephalometric measurements were performed using Dolphin imaging software 11.7. The Kruskal-Wallis and ANOVA tests were used to calculate the differences. The Dunn test and Bonferroni correction were used in paired group comparisons. RESULTS: SNA, Co-A, A-PTV Horizontal, Na-APog, A-Na-Pog, FH-NA, Sn'-Mx1, MxOP-TVL (p<0.001***), U6-PTV Vertical (p<0.01**), and NaBa PTV-Gn (p<0.05*) values were significantly different between the three groups. There was no significant difference in Na-ANS, FH-NPog, or Mx1 labial-ULA. SNA, Co-A, A-PTV Horizontal, Na-APog, and A-Na-Pog values between the 1st and 2nd groups and between the 1st and 3rd groups (p<0.001***) were significantly different. FH-Na-A, Sn'-Mx1, MxOP-TVL (p<0.001***), and U6-PTV vertical were different between groups 1 and 3 (p<0.01**), while FH-Na-A (p<0.001***), Sn'-Mx1, MxOP-TVL (p<0.01**), A-PTV Horizontal, and A-Na-Pog (p<0.05*) were significantly different between groups 2 and 3. CONCLUSION: Maxillary development in CLP differs from skeletal Class I but is similar to skeletal Class III. Considering the delay in maxillary development in the CLP patient, maxillary protraction and maxillary expansion are important treatment protocols in the early period.
AIM: To compare maxillary development of individuals with unilateral cleft lip and palate (CLP) to individuals with skeletal Class I and Class III malocclusions. STUDY DESIGN: Cephalometric X-ray films from 90 patients (mean age: 13 ± 2.3 years) were used. The number of samples was determined by Power analysis and three groups consisting of 30 patients (Group 1: Skeletal Class I, Group 2: Skeletal Class III, Group 3: CLP) were formed. A total of 13 cephalometric measurements were performed using Dolphin imaging software 11.7. The Kruskal-Wallis and ANOVA tests were used to calculate the differences. The Dunn test and Bonferroni correction were used in paired group comparisons. RESULTS: SNA, Co-A, A-PTV Horizontal, Na-APog, A-Na-Pog, FH-NA, Sn'-Mx1, MxOP-TVL (p<0.001***), U6-PTV Vertical (p<0.01**), and NaBaPTV-Gn (p<0.05*) values were significantly different between the three groups. There was no significant difference in Na-ANS, FH-NPog, or Mx1 labial-ULA. SNA, Co-A, A-PTV Horizontal, Na-APog, and A-Na-Pog values between the 1st and 2nd groups and between the 1st and 3rd groups (p<0.001***) were significantly different. FH-Na-A, Sn'-Mx1, MxOP-TVL (p<0.001***), and U6-PTV vertical were different between groups 1 and 3 (p<0.01**), while FH-Na-A (p<0.001***), Sn'-Mx1, MxOP-TVL (p<0.01**), A-PTV Horizontal, and A-Na-Pog (p<0.05*) were significantly different between groups 2 and 3. CONCLUSION: Maxillary development in CLP differs from skeletal Class I but is similar to skeletal Class III. Considering the delay in maxillary development in the CLPpatient, maxillary protraction and maxillary expansion are important treatment protocols in the early period.
Entities:
Keywords:
Unilateral cleft lip and palate; maxillary development; skeletal class I; skeletal class III
Authors: Björn Rahlf; Philippe Korn; Alexander-Nicolai Zeller; Simon Spalthoff; Philipp Jehn; Fritjof Lentge; Nils-Claudius Gellrich Journal: Int J Implant Dent Date: 2022-02-02