Primary Palatoplasty for Unilateral Cleft Lip and Palate Using Mucosal Grafts and Flaps.

The mucosal graft and flaps method (MG method) is a palatoplasty technique that was developed for the purpose of improving maxillary growth in patients with cleft palate. In the MG method, full-thickness buccal mucosa is grafted onto the raw surface created by pushback palatoplasty. The method is unlikely to result in severe scarring and has a favorable effect on maxillary growth. In addition, it is unlikely to result in oronasal fistula and provides good speech results. Overall, postive long-term treatment results have been obtained. Although the MG method is technically difficult and requires a lengthy surgery, the technique is considered to be effective for palate closure in terms of speech and maxillary growth.

Segmental distraction osteogenesis with modified LeFort II osteotomy for a patient with craniosynostosis.

In this article, we report successful orthodontic treatment combined with segmental distraction osteogenesis after a modified LeFort II osteotomy in a patient with craniosynostosis. An 8-year-old boy diagnosed with craniosynostosis had a dished-in face, an anterior crossbite, and a skeletal Class III jaw relationship because of midfacial hypoplasia. At the age of 13 years 6 months, the maxillary second and mandibular first premolars were extracted, and leveling and alignment of both arches was started with preadjusted edgewise appliances. At age 14 years 11 months, the patient had a modified LeFort II osteotomy, and the maxillary segment was advanced 7 mm and fixed to the zygomatic bone. At the same time, segmental distraction osteogenesis was started with a rigid external distraction system, and the nasal segment was advanced for 20 days at a rate of 1.0 mm per day. The total active treatment period was 40 months. As a result of the modified segmental distraction osteogenesis, significant improvement of his severe midfacial hypoplasia was achieved without excessive advancement of the maxillary dentition. Both the facial profile and the occlusion were stable after 1 year of retention. However, the nasal segment relapsed 1.4 mm during the 1.5 years after the segmental distraction osteogenesis. Evaluation of the stability and retention suggests that some overcorrection in midfacial advancement is recommended.

Maxillary movement in distraction osteogenesis using internal devices in cleft palate patients.

OBJECTIVE: The purpose of this cephalometric study was to compare the actual movement with the planned movement of the maxilla by using internal maxillary distraction in cleft lip and palate patients. PATIENTS: Twelve patients, including eight with unilateral and four with bilateral cleft lip and palate, underwent maxillary advancement with internal maxillary distractors. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Lateral cephalometric radiographs obtained preoperatively, predistraction, and postdistraction were used for analysis. The movement of the maxilla, angular change of the internal devices and rotation of the mandible were measured at each stage, and the planned vector of advancement predicted from the placement vector of the distractors was compared with the actual vector. RESULTS: Internal maxillary distractors were rotated in a clockwise direction during the distraction period. The angular change of the distractors was 7.7°. The amount of actual advancement at anterior nasal spine with distraction was 6.3 mm, which represented about 70% of the distance of activation of distraction. The actual advanced vector at anterior nasal spine was 9.7° smaller than the planned vector. The mandible underwent a clockwise rotation of 3.5°. CONCLUSION: In the internal distraction technique, the maxilla was advanced inferiorly to the planned vector and with a slight clockwise rotation. These results are useful for surgical planning when using internal distractors.

Primary alveolar bone grafting and gingivoperiosteoplasty or gingivomucoperiosteal flap at the time of 1-stage repair of unilateral cleft lip and palate.

It takes quite a long time to finish treating patients with cleft lip and palate. Usually, lip closure, palate repair, secondary alveolar bone grafting, and secondary repair of lip/nose have been given to patients at appropriate time according to their growth. However, these series of surgical interventions impose a considerable burden on the patients and their families. As for palate repair, it is considered that the earlier the better for the sake of speech, but it should be delayed to approximately 1(1/2) years of age for maxillary growth. However, we have developed a palate repair technique that will hardly result in marked maxillary growth impairment by modifying the Furlow method, so we have become able to perform palate repair between 3 and 10 months after birth. Accordingly, we can perform lip and palate repair simultaneously, which have been performed separately. As we have developed a 1-stage repair of cleft lip and palate including primary alveolar bone grafting from nasal concha and/or hard plate and gingivoperiosteoplasty or gingivomucoperiosteal flap, we report on our technique and treatment outcome.

Excessive rapid palatal expansion with Latham appliance for distal repositioning of protruded premaxilla in bilateral cleft lip and alveolus.

OBJECTIVE: This article reports a case of bilateral cleft lip and alveolus (BCLA) for which excessive rapid palatal expansion with a Latham appliance was performed for preoperative alignment of the protruded premaxilla. Postoperative changes of maxillary width were investigated with serial plaster casts. PATIENT AND RESULTS: A 3-month-old girl presented with complete BCLA in which the premaxilla was markedly protruded. Preoperative alignment of the protruded premaxilla with a Latham appliance was planned to facilitate primary lip repair. The appliance was placed when the patient was 4.5 months old. The necessary palatal expansion was estimated to be 7.0 mm in order to move the premaxilla backward into the ideal position. After palatal expansion and posterior repositioning of the protruded premaxilla, the primary operation, including cheiloplasty and gingivoperiosteoplasty, was performed when the patient was 7 months old. Excessive maxillary expansion might be a cause of transverse maxillomandibular discrepancy. Measurement with serial plaster casts demonstrated that maxillary widths increased from 42.3 mm pretreatment to 49.0 mm after orthopedic treatment but relapsed markedly to 43.5 mm at 3 months after the primary operation. Therefore, the net change of maxillary widths was only 1.2 mm. After alignment of the protruded premaxilla, tension-free soft tissue repairs were performed, and a harmonious alveolar arch was obtained without change in maxillary width. CONCLUSION: These results indicate that this method is useful for preoperative management of BCLA with protruded premaxilla.