Stereophotogrammetry to evaluate young adults with and without cleft lip and palate after orthodontic and restorative treatment.

STATEMENT OF PROBLEM: Patients with cleft lip and palate generally present with lateral incisor agenesis, which may be treated with an implant-supported prosthesis. However, whether implants can stabilize the dental arches in patients with cleft lip and palate is unclear. PURPOSE: The purpose of this retrospective clinical study was to analyze the stability of the maxillary dental arch after orthodontic treatment and oral rehabilitation in the cleft area with an implant-supported prosthesis or a fixed partial denture. MATERIAL AND METHODS: Fifty-five participants, 20 with unilateral cleft lip and palate rehabilitated with implants (CLPI), 15 with unilateral cleft lip and palate rehabilitated with fixed partial dentures (CLPFP), and 20 in the noncleft group (NCLP) and their gypsum casts (N=110) were digitized and evaluated through 3D stereophotogrammetry. Measurements were made on casts obtained immediately after the orthodontic treatment (T1); for the cleft lip and palate group, casts were made 1 year after implant-supported restoration placement (T2), and for the noncleft group, 1 year after the conclusion of the orthodontic treatment (T2). The dimensions of the dental arches were measured digitally. Formula Δ=T2-T1 evaluated the stability of dental arches for intercanine distances, intermolar distances, arch length, palate surface, and volume (3D). Stability (Δ) was compared through 1-way ANOVA in all groups (α=.05). RESULTS: A statistically significant difference was found in the stability of the CLPI and CLPFP groups for intercanine measurement (P=.002). For the intermolar measurement, a statistically significant difference was detected between the CLPFP and NCLP groups (P=.002). From the 3D measurements, the stability was similar in all groups. CONCLUSIONS: In patients with clefts, a fixed partial denture may provide better stability of the orthodontic outcomes than an implant-supported prosthesis. However, greater instability occurred at the molar area.

Assessment of dental arch stability after orthodontic treatment and oral rehabilitation in complete unilateral cleft lip and palate and non-clefts patients using 3D stereophotogrammetry.

BACKGROUND: Although arch stability has been studied in patients without a cleft, evidence for patients with a cleft is sparse. Therefore, we compared the dimensions and stability of dental arches in cleft lip and palate patients and those without a cleft. METHODS: Forty participants, 20 with a complete unilateral cleft lip and palate and 20 non-cleft patients aged from 18 to 30 years, with anterior and/or posterior crossbite and receiving orthodontic treatment were evaluated retrospectively. Eighty gypsum casts were digitized using a laser model scanner casts for both groups made immediately after the orthodontic treatment was completed (T1). Also, for the Cleft Lip and Palate group, casts were obtained and digitized 1 year after implant-supported rehabilitation (T2) and for the Non-Cleft Lip and Palate group, 1 year after the conclusion of the orthodontic treatment (T2). The formula: Δ = T2-T1 evaluated the stability of dental arches for inter-canine distances (C-C'), inter-molar distances (M-M'), arch length (I-M), palate surface and volume. The dimensions of the dental arches were measured digitally. The independent t test was used for statistical analysis (α = 0.05). RESULTS: A statistical difference was found in the stability of the groups for inter-canine (cleft area) measurement. At the times T1 and T2, a statistically significant difference was found in the arch length, surface and volume. CONCLUSIONS: This study concluded that in the Cleft Lip and Palate group, the maxillary dimensions were not stabilized after 1 year of orthodontic and prosthodontic treatment (mainly for the inter-canine linear measurement) and that the transverse arch dimensions were smaller compared with those of non-cleft patients.