Comparison of the psychosocial impact on patients affected by cranio facial anomalies between traditional orthodontic brackets and aligners.

OBJECTIVES: Malocclusion affects the psychological wellness and social interaction, impacting negatively on adolescents' quality of life and self-esteem. Facial attractiveness is mostly based on the esthetics of the smile and patients seek orthodontic treatment mainly to improve aesthetics. The aim of this prospective clinical study is to compare the psychosocial impact of aligners (AL) and fixed appliances (FA) as orthodontic treatments in patients affected by craniofacial anomalies (CFA). METHODS: 100 syndromic Caucasian patients with CFA followed in two different hospitals were divided in two groups: 50 patients treated with AL and 50 patients treated with FA. The two groups were matched for gender, age and CFA and filled out a modified psychosocial impact of dental aesthetics questionnaire (mPIDAQ). RESULTS: Patients affected by CFA treated with AL reported a better psychosocial impact than patients treated with FA, showing higher esthetic self-perception and self-esteem, lower social interaction impairments, and lower physical/practical disturbances. CONCLUSIONS: The results of this study suggest that AL could be a valid alternative, especially in complex patients with CFA. Since AL application requires more cooperative patients the orthodontist should dedicate more time to motivate the patient to adhere to the treatment schedule.

Photometric Evaluation of Adult Patients With Bilateral Cleft Lip and Palate Treated With Nasoalveolar Molding and Primary Columella Lengthening.

OBJECTIVE: The aim of this study was to assess the nasal shape of young adults with BCLP treated with primary surgical columella lengthening and nasoalveolar molding (NAM). SETTING AND PATIENTS: A group of 28 young adult patients with BCLP (mean age: 19.1±1.4 years) was compared through normalized photogrammetry to a control of 28 age- and sex-matched noncleft young adults. RESULTS: Nasal protrusion and length of the columella were not different from noncleft young adults. On the other hand, nasolabial angle, columellar width, interalar, and nasal tip width were significantly wider than the noncleft controls. Thus, 27% of the patients have requested at this time secondary correction of the excessive nasal width. CONCLUSIONS: Both NAM and primary rhinoplasty in patients with BCLP resulted in a near normal length of the columella and nasal projection until young adulthood. Nevertheless, width of all nasal features was significantly wider than the noncleft population and required secondary nasal correction in one-third of the sample.

Maxillary growth impairment in cleft lip and palate patients: a simplified approach in the search for a cause.

No true consensus exists regarding the causes of maxillary growth restriction in cleft lip and palate patients. The aim of this study was to evaluate a simplified method to identify the causes of this growth impairment. We analyzed a sample of 82 consecutively treated 5-year-old patients with unilateral complete cleft lip and palate, operated on by the same surgeon (R.B.). Multiple cephalometric measurements of the sample revealed a wide distribution of maxillary growth values. We selected Sella-Nasion A point angle (SNA) as a value describing maxillary position, and we arbitrarily isolated 2 "extreme" groups of patients: the 20 patients with the highest SNA were called "good growers" (group A), and the 20 patients with the lowest SNA were called "poor growers" (group B). Parameters investigated to search for different influencing factors within the groups were initial cast measurements, timing of lip and of gingivoalveoloplasty/palatal surgery, presence of lateral incisors, and family history of maxillary hypoplasia. Statistical differences were investigated with an independent-samples t-test. The 2 extreme groups had a significant difference (P < 0.01) in SNA and in lip protrusion relative to true vertical line. Cranial base angle was larger in group A. Timing of lip surgery in group B was earlier than in group A, but only close to significance. Timing of gingivoalveoloplasty did not differ. In group A, the permanent lateral incisor was missing in 20% of the patients; whereas in group B, it was missing in 82% of the patients (P < 0.01). Selecting cleft lip and palate population with different growth pattern might help in isolating the factors responsible for maxillary growth impairment. Congenitally missing laterals that could indicate inherent tissue hypoplasia seems to be the most important factor.