Vomer flap for hard palate repair is related to favorable maxillary growth in unilateral cleft lip and palate.

OBJECTIVE: Vomer flap repair is assumed to improve maxillary growth because of reduced scarring in growth-sensitive areas of the palate. Our aim was to evaluate whether facial growth in patients with unilateral cleft lip and palate was significantly affected by the technique of hard palate repair (vomer flap versus two-flap). MATERIALS AND METHODS: For this retrospective longitudinal study, we analyzed 334 cephalometric radiographs from 95 patients with nonsyndromic complete unilateral cleft lip and palate who underwent hard palate repair by two different techniques (vomer flap versus two-flap). Clinical notes were reviewed to record treatment histories. Cephalometry was used to determine facial morphology and growth rate. The associations among facial morphology at age 20, facial growth rate, and technique of hard palate repair were assessed using generalized estimating equation analysis. RESULTS: The hard palate repair technique significantly influenced protrusion of the maxilla (SNA: ß = -3.5°, 95 % CI = -5.2-1.7; p = 0.001) and the anteroposterior jaw relation (ANB: ß = -4.2°, 95 % CI = -6.4-1.9; p = 0.001; Wits: ß = -5.7 mm, 95 % CI = -9.6-1.2; p = 0.01) at age 20, and their growth rates (SNA p = 0.001, ANB p < 0.01, and Wits p = 0.02). CONCLUSIONS: The results suggest that in patients with unilateral cleft lip and palate, vomer flap repair has a smaller adverse effect than two-flap on growth of the maxilla. This effect on maxillary growth is on the anteroposterior development of the alveolar maxilla and is progressive with age. We now perform hard palate closure with vomer flap followed by soft palate closure using Furlow palatoplasty. CLINICAL RELEVANCE: These findings may improve treatment outcome by modifying the treatment protocol for patients with unilateral cleft lip and palate.

Hard palate-repair technique and facial growth in patients with cleft lip and palate: a systematic review.

The vomer flap technique for repair of the hard palate is assumed to improve maxillary growth because it causes less scarring in growth-sensitive areas of the palate. The aim of this systematic review was to investigate the effect of techniques using the vomer flap compared with the palatal flap on facial growth in patients with cleft lip and palate. All papers published before 21 July 2012 were sought in the databases PubMed and MEDLINE. Search terms included "facial growth", "cleft lip and palate", "palatal repair technique", and "vomer flap". Additional studies were identified by hand searching the reference lists of the papers retrieved from the electronic search. Two independent reviewers assessed the eligibility of studies for inclusion, extracted the data, and assessed the quality of the methods. Six studies met the selection criteria. Outcomes assessed in 4 studies were dentofacial morphology after vomer or palatal flap, maxillary dental arch in 1 study, and dental arch relations in 2 studies. The quality of the methods used in 3 studies was poor. Contradictory results and a lack of high-quality and long-term outcomes of reviewed studies provided no conclusive scientific evidence about whether the vomer flap technique has more or less of an adverse effect on maxillary growth than the palatal flap. Further well-designed, well-controlled, and long-term studies particularly of the vomer flap (2-stage) and palatal flap (von Langenbeck or two-flap, 1-stage) are needed.