Beyond the face: An interdisciplinary evaluation of satisfaction with appearance in young people with orofacial clefts.

Orofacial clefts are the most common congenital anomaly of the face, and they significantly affect appearance. The combined effects of demographics, psychology, neurophysiology, and cleft characteristics to explain satisfaction with appearance in young people with a cleft have not yet been comprehensively studied in an interdisciplinary manner. We found that interpersonal difficulties, age, and conscientiousness were significant explanatory factors for satisfaction with appearance (tinterpersonal difficulties = -3.022, p = 0.006; tage = -3.563, p = 0.016; tconscientiousness = 4.161, p = 0.003); the model explained 50% of variance in satisfaction with appearance (R2 Adjusted = 0.504, Fvs. constant = 4.05, p = 0.00117). Furthermore, frontal alpha asymmetry was complexly intertwined with other variables, affecting the overall accuracy of the model, but explaining only 10.5% of variance in satisfaction with appearance when used as a factor alone. The results show that an interdisciplinary approach can substantially expand our understanding of the factors influencing self-perception in young people with orofacial clefts.

Maxillary arch dimensions, occlusion assessment and space conditions in patients with cleft palate in the period of deciduous dentition-A retrospective study.

PURPOSE: The aim of this study was to evaluate the maxillary arch dimensions, dentoalveolar relationships and spacing conditions in patients with cleft palate in comparison with the control group. METHODS: The subjects consisted of 31 children with cleft palate only (CP) aged 5.5 ± 0.51 (20 with a cleft of hard and soft palate (SHPC group) and 11 with a cleft of soft palate only (SPC group)). In the control group 30 subjects had a normal occlusion at age 5. Maxillary arch dimensions, dentoalveolar relationship according to the Huddard Bodenham index (HBI) and space conditions were compared with the control group. RESULTS: In all variables of maxillary arch dimensions except for total arch height the control group exhibited greater values. Most of the significant differences were on account of differences between the control and the SHPC group, with only three comparisons yielding significant results when comparing the two groups of children with clefts (SHPC vs SPC, IV-IV central: pDunnett T3= 0.0002, 95%CIDifference=-9.9-(-3.18); V-V distopalatal cusps: pDunnett T3= 0.0002, 95%CIDifference=-9.97-(-3.17); Total arch length: pDunnett T3= 0.0014, 95%CIDifference=1.74-7.85). The three groups differed significantly in anterior HBI only (HKruskal-Wallis=15.56, p = 0.0067). The spacing conditions in both jaws were also shown to be significantly dependent on the group of subjects studied (Upper jaw: χ2omnibus= 16.79, p = 0.0018; lower jaw: χ2omnibus= 13.75, p = 0.0102). CONCLUSIONS: The growth of the upper dental arch at the age of five is impeded in participants with CP in comparison to a control group. It is important to assess the effect of cleft subtypes on growth and development to get a better understanding.