Does Infant Orthopedics and Neonate Lip Surgery Influence the Occlusal Relationship in Patients With Unilateral Cleft Lip and Palate (UCLP)?

OBJECTIVE: To compare occlusal relationship in patients undergoing neonate versus conventional lip surgery (LS) with and without infant orthopedics (IO) by assessment of dental arch relationship in individuals with complete unilateral cleft lip and palate. MATERIAL AND METHODS: Three groups treated by different protocols; Group I: neonate LS (1-15 days) + IO and palatoplasty (13-31 months); Group II: LS (3-12 months) + IO and palatoplasty (15-35 months); and Group III: LS (3-6 months) without IO and palatoplasty (12-18 months). The 112 intraoral photographs of individuals of all groups, obtained between 6 and 12 years of age, were assessed by the occlusal index for intraoral photograph rating. The groups were compared by the χ2 test. The correlation between surgical timing and the scores was tested by the Spearman test (P < .05). RESULTS: Group I presented the highest percentage of score 5, group II exhibited highest percentage of score 1, and group III presented the lowest percentage of score 5 according to the χ2 test (P = .029). The Spearman correlation test revealed statistically significant difference between timing of LS and the occlusal index. The earlier the surgical timing, the higher the occlusal index (P = .019). CONCLUSIONS: Infant orthopedics has demonstrated the possibility of postponing primary plastic surgeries. Patients submitted to late lip and palate repair had the best prognosis, while patients undergoing lip repair from 1 to 15 days of life, even operating the palate later, had the worst prognosis. Neonate LS negatively influenced the occlusal relationships.

Outcomes of Alveolar Graft With Rhbmp-2 in CLP: Influence of Cleft Type and Width, Canine Eruption, and Surgeon.

OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the influence of cleft type and width, canine eruption stage, and surgeon on the outcomes of alveolar graft with rhBMP-2. DESIGN: Cross-sectional. SETTING: Tertiary craniofacial center. PARTICIPANTS: Ninety individuals submitted to alveolar graft in late mixed or early permanent dentition. INTERVENTIONS: The 90 individuals (mean age: 16.8 years) were submitted to alveolar graft with rhBMP-2. Periapical radiographs were obtained before and 6 months after surgery. Surgeries were performed by 4 experienced maxillofacial surgeons. The alveolar grafts were assigned as success or failure by 3 blinded raters based on the modified Bergland and Chelsea scales. Permanent canines adjacent to the defect were assigned as erupted and not erupted. The greatest cleft width was measured on preoperative periapical radiographs. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: The influence of 4 independent variables (cleft type, cleft width, canine eruption phase, and surgeon) on the outcome of alveolar graft was analyzed by multivariate logistic regression ( P < .05). RESULTS: All independent variables presented significant influence on alveolar graft outcome. The subgroup of unerupted maxillary canines demonstrated better outcomes than erupted canines ( P = .001). The group with cleft lip and alveolus (CL/A) demonstrated better outcomes than complete cleft lip and palate (CLP; P < .001). The greater the alveolar cleft width, the less favorable were the graft outcomes ( P = .027). The surgeon also had a significant influence on the surgery success ( P = .003 and .001). CONCLUSION: The type and width of CLP, the eruption of permanent canines, and the surgeon influenced the outcome of alveolar graft surgeries performed with rhBMP-2.

Slow versus rapid maxillary expansion in bilateral cleft lip and palate: a CBCT randomized clinical trial.

OBJECTIVES: The purpose of this "two-arm parallel" trial was to compare the orthopedic, dental, and alveolar bone plate changes of slow (SME) and rapid (RME) maxillary expansions in patients with complete bilateral cleft lip and palate (BCLP). MATERIAL AND METHODS: Forty-six patients with BCLP and maxillary arch constriction in the late mixed dentition were randomly and equally allocated into two groups. Computer-generated randomization was used. Allocation was concealed with sequentially, numbered, sealed, opaque envelopes. The SME and RME groups comprised patients treated with quad-helix and Haas/Hyrax-type expanders, respectively. Cone-beam computed tomography (CBCT) exams were performed before expansion and 4 to 6 months post-expansion. Nasal cavity width, maxillary width, alveolar crest width, arch width, palatal cleft width, inclination of posterior teeth, alveolar crest level, and buccal and lingual bone plate thickness were assessed. Blinding was applicable for outcome assessment only. Interphase and intergroup comparisons were performed using paired t tests and t tests, respectively (p < 0.05). RESULTS: SME and RME similarly promoted significant increase in all the maxillary transverse dimensions at molar and premolar regions with a decreasing expanding effect from the dental arch to the nasal cavity. Palatal cleft width had a significant increase in both groups. Significant buccal inclination of posterior teeth was only observed for RME. Additionally, both expansion procedures promoted a slight reduction of the alveolar crest level and the buccal bone plate thickness. CONCLUSIONS: No difference was found between the orthopedic, dental, and alveolar bone plate changes of SME and RME in children with BCLP. Both appliances produced significant skeletal transverse gains with negligible periodontal bone changes. Treatment time for SME, however, was longer than the observed for RME. CLINICAL RELEVANCE: SME and RME can be similarly indicated to correct maxillary arch constriction in patients with BCLP in the mixed dentition.

Analysis of the dentoalveolar effects of slow and rapid maxillary expansion in complete bilateral cleft lip and palate patients: a randomized clinical trial.

OBJECTIVES: The purpose of this study was to compare the dentoalveolar effects of slow (SME) and rapid (RME) maxillary expansions in patients with complete bilateral cleft lip and palate (BCLP). MATERIAL AND METHODS: A sample of 50 patients with BCLP and maxillary arch constriction was randomly and equally allocated into two groups. Group SME comprised patients (mean age of 8.8 years) treated with quad-helix appliance. Group RME comprised individuals (mean age of 8.9 years) treated with Hyrax expander. Digital dental models obtained immediately pre-expansion (T1) and 6 months after the active expansion period (T2) were used for measuring maxillary dental arch widths, arch perimeter, arch length, palatal depth, buccolingual inclination of posterior teeth and differential amount of expansion accomplished at the canine and molar regions. Inter-phase and intergroup comparisons were performed using paired t tests and t tests, respectively (p < 0.05). RESULTS: SME and RME caused significant increase of arch widths and arch perimeter. Arch length and palatal depth decreased nonsignificantly with SME but significantly with RME. Buccal tooth inclination was significant only for maxillary deciduous canines in both groups. The quad-helix appliance showed a significant differential expansion between anterior and posterior regions. No differences were observed between SME and RME for all variables. CONCLUSIONS: Differences were not found between the dentoalveolar effects of SME and RME in patients with BCLP. SME demanded a greater therapy time compared to RME. CLINICAL RELEVANCE: Both expansion procedures can be similarly indicated to correct maxillary arch constriction in patients with BCLP in the mixed dentition.

Dentoskeletal outcomes of a rapid maxillary expander with differential opening in patients with bilateral cleft lip and palate: A prospective clinical trial.

INTRODUCTION: The purpose of this 2-arm parallel study was to evaluate the dentoskeletal effects of rapid maxillary expansion with differential opening (EDO) compared with the hyrax expander in patients with complete bilateral cleft lip and palate. METHODS: A sample of patients with complete bilateral cleft lip and palate was prospectively and consecutively recruited. Eligibility criteria included participants in the mixed dentition with lip and palate repair performed during early childhood and maxillary arch constriction with a need for maxillary expansion before the alveolar bone graft procedure. The participants were consecutively divided into 2 study groups. The experimental and control groups comprised patients treated with rapid maxillary expansion using EDO and the hyrax expander, respectively. Cone-beam computed tomography examinations and digital dental models of the maxillary dental arches were obtained before expansion and 6 months postexpansion. Standardized cone-beam computed tomography coronal sections were used for measuring maxillary transverse dimensions and posterior tooth inclinations. Digital dental models were used for assessing maxillary dental arch widths, arch perimeters, arch lengths, palatal depths, and posterior tooth inclinations. Blinding was used only during outcome assessment. The chi-square test was used to compare the sex ratios between groups (P <0.05). Intergroup comparisons were performed using independent t tests with the Bonferroni correction for multiple tests. RESULTS: Fifty patients were recruited and analyzed in their respective groups. The experimental group comprised 25 patients (mean age, 8.8 years), and the control group comprised 25 patients (mean age, 8.6 years). No intergroup significant differences were found for age, sex ratio, and dentoskeletal variables before expansion. No significant differences were found between the EDO and the hyrax expander groups regarding skeletal changes. The EDO promoted significantly greater increases of intercanine width (difference, 3.63 mm) and smaller increases in canine buccal tipping than the conventional hyrax expander. No serious harm was observed other than transitory variable pressure sensations on the maxillary alveolar process in both groups. CONCLUSIONS: The EDO produced skeletal changes similar to the conventional hyrax expander. The differential expander is an adequate alternative to conventional rapid maxillary expanders when there is need for greater expansion in the maxillary dental arch anterior region. REGISTRATION: This trial was not registered. PROTOCOL: The protocol was not published before trial commencement. FUNDING: This study received financial support from FAPESP (process number 2009/17622-9). As a possible conflict of interest, a patent with an EDO was submitted in March 2011 to the National Institute of Industry Property and is still in process. However, we believe that this is a natural step of translational research (bench-to-bedside), and we guarantee that the scientific results are true.

Cephalometric evaluation of rapid and slow maxillary expansion in patients with BCLP: Secondary data analysis from a randomized clinical trial.

OBJECTIVE: To compare the dentoskeletal effects of rapid (RME) and slow (SME) maxillary expansion in patients with bilateral complete cleft lip and palate (BCLP). MATERIALS AND METHODS: This was a secondary analysis of a previous randomized controlled trial (RCT). Forty-six patients (34 male, 12 female) with BCLP and posterior crossbite (mean age of 9.2 years) were randomly assigned to two study groups. Group RME comprised subjects treated with Haas/Hyrax expander. Group SME included patients treated with quad-helix appliance. Cone-beam computed tomography (CBCT) was performed before expansion (T1) and after appliance removal at the end of a 6-month retention period (T2) for a previous RCT that compared the transverse skeletal effects of RME and SME. CBCT-derived cephalometric images were generated and cephalometric analysis was performed using Dolphin Imaging Software (Chatsworth, Calif). Intergroup comparisons were performed using t tests (P < .05). RESULTS: Baseline forms were similar between groups. No significant differences between RME and SME groups were found. CONCLUSIONS: Rapid and slow maxillary expansion produced similar sagittal and vertical changes in patients with BCLP. Both Haas/Hyrax and quad-helix appliances can be used in patients with vertical facial pattern. Clinical relevance: RME and SME can be equally indicated in the treatment of maxillary arch constriction in patients with BCLP.

Evaluation of the midpalatal suture during rapid palatal expansion in children: a CT study.

The midpalatal suture of 18 children submitted to rapid palatal expansion with the Haas fixed expander and ranging in age from 5 years 2 months to 10 years 5 months was evaluated with computerized tomography. The posterior nasal spine undergoes the impact of RPE in patients in the primary and mixed dentition stages, similarly to the anterior nasal spine though to a lesser extent. The average opening of the midpalatal suture was 2.21 mm in the anterior nasal spine region and 0.95 mm in the posterior nasal spine region.