Skip to main content
Log in

Three-dimensional analysis of maxillary development in patients with unilateral cleft lip and palate during the first six years of life

Dreidimensionale Analyse der Oberkieferentwicklung in den ersten sechs Lebensjahren bei Patienten mit unilateralen Lippen-Kiefer-Gaumen-Spalten

  • Original article
  • Published:
Journal of Orofacial Orthopedics / Fortschritte der Kieferorthopädie Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Objectives

The purpose of this work was to analyse early upper-jaw development in patients with unilateral cleft lip and palate (UCLP) treated using two different concepts and to compare shape and size developments between these two groups and a group of noncleft patients.

Materials and methods

A total of 204 maxillary casts available for this study from 50 UCLP patients were analyzed for upper-jaw development based on three-dimensional measurements performed with a Reflex Microscope from birth up to 71 months of age. Thirty-five of these 50 patients were part of an early treatment group (two-stage cleft closure with single-stage palatoplasty at an age of 10–14 months) and 15 were part of a late treatment group (two-stage cleft closure with palatoplasty at an age of 4–7 years). The control group included 39 casts of 17 noncleft patients.

Results

Analysis of shape and size between the patients in the three groups yielded statistically significant differences between the cleft and the noncleft patients. In both treatment groups, we made observations typically associated with cleft formation like lateralization, asymmetry of the greater and lesser cleft segments, and pronounced vertical deviations of the segments. Viewed in all dimensions, however, the patients in the early treatment group approached the control group more closely, although a statistically significant difference was still observed.

Conclusion

Our results suggest that the timing of hard-palate closure is not a decisive factor for upper-jaw development. Intrinsic factors (initial cleft width, presence of tooth buds) and the surgeon’s skills appear to have a much more defining role.

Zusammenfassung

Ziel

Ziel der vorliegenden Untersuchung war es, die frühe Oberkieferentwicklung von Patienten mit einseitigen Lippen-Kiefer-Gaumen-Spalten, behandelt nach 2 unterschiedlichen Konzepten, zu analysieren und sie untereinander und mit einer Gruppe von Nichtspaltträgern bezüglich der Entwicklung von Form und Größe zu vergleichen.

Material und Methode

Für die Untersuchung standen Oberkiefermodelle von 50 Patienten mit unilateraler Lippen-Kiefer-Gaumen-Spalte zur Verfügung. Die Oberkieferentwicklung von diesen Patienten wurde vom Zeitpunkt der Geburt bis zu einem Alter von bis zu 71 Monaten untersucht, wobei insgesamt 204 Oberkiefermodelle mittels eines Reflexmikroskops 3-dimensional vermessen wurden. Von den 50 Patienten waren 35 nach einem Konzept des früheren zweizeitigen Spaltverschlusses (einzeitiger Gaumenspaltverschluss zwischen den 10. und 14. Lebensmonat) und 15 nach einem Konzept des späteren zweizeitigen Spaltverschlusses (Gaumenspaltverschluss zwischen dem 4. und 7. Lebensjahr) therapiert worden. Als Vergleichsgruppe dienten 39 Modelle von 17 Patienten ohne Spaltbildung.

Ergebnisse

Die Analyse der Form und Größe bei den Patienten der 3 Gruppen zeigte statistisch signifikante Unterschiede zwischen den Spaltträgern und den Nichtspaltträgern. Unabhängig von der Art des Therapiekonzeptes waren eine spalttypische Lateralisierung und Asymmetrie des großen und des kleinen Segments sowie deutliche vertikale Abweichungen der Spaltsegmente zu finden. In allen Dimensionen betrachtet näherten sich jedoch die nach dem Konzept des frühen Gaumenverschlusses operierten Patienten mehr an die Kontrollgruppe an, wobei nach wie vor ein statistisch signifikanter Unterschied zu beobachten war.

Schlussfolgerungen

Die Ergebnisse legen nahe, dass der Einfluss des Zeitpunktes des Hartgaumenverschlusses auf die Oberkieferentwicklung nicht als entscheidender Faktor anzusehen ist. Intrinsische Befunde wie die initiale Spaltbreite und Zahnanlagen in den Spaltsegmenten sowie Erfahrungen des Operateurs scheinen für die Entwicklung weitaus prägendere Faktoren zu sein.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Fig. 1
Fig. 2
Fig. 3
Fig. 4
Fig. 5
Fig. 6
Fig. 7

References

  1. Adali N, Mars M, Petrie A et al (2012) Presurgical orthopedics has no effect on archform in unilateral cleft lip and palate. Cleft Palate Craniofac J 49:5–13

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  2. Athanasiou AE, Mazaheri M, Zarrinnia K (1988) Dental arch dimension in patients with unilateral cleft lip and palate. Cleft Palate J 25:139–145

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  3. Berkowitz S (1985) Timing cleft palate closure-age should not be the sole determinant. J Craniofac Genet Dev Biol Suppl 1:69–83

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  4. Berkowitz S (2013) Cleft lip and palate. Diagnosis and management. Springer, Heidelberg Berlin New York Tokyo, pp 330–331

  5. Börnert H, Dannhauer KH, Schmalzried D (2002) Vertical changes in the positions of the cleft segments of patients with unilateral cleft lip and palate. J Orofac Orthop 63:51–61

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  6. Bookstein F (1991) Morphometric tools for landmark data: geometry and biology. Cambridge University

  7. Braumann B, Rosenhayn SE, Bourauel C et al (1999) 3-D-Modellanalyse des Oberkiefers von Säuglingen mit LKG-Spalten. Biomed Tech (Berl) 44:324–330

    Google Scholar 

  8. Braumann B, Keilig L, Bourauel C, Jäger A (2002) Three-dimensional analysis of morphological changes in the maxilla of patients with cleft lip and palate. Cleft Palate Craniofac J 39:1–11

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  9. Bugaighis I, O’Higgins P, Tiddeman B et al (2010) Three-dimensional geometric morphometrics applied to the study of children with cleft lip and/or palate from the North East of England. Eur J Orthod 30:514–521

    Article  Google Scholar 

  10. Chiu YT, Liao YF, Chen PKT (2011) Initial cleft severity and maxillary growth in patients with complete unilateral cleft lip and palate. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop 140:189–195

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  11. Dahlberg G (1940) Statistical methods for medical and biological students. Interscience, New York

  12. Da Silva Filho OG, Ramos AL, Abdo RCC (1992) The influence of unilateral cleft lip and palate on maxillary dental arch morphology. Angle Orthod 62:283–290

    Google Scholar 

  13. Dryden IL, Mardia K (1992) Size and shape analysis of landmark data. Biometrika 79:57–58

    Article  Google Scholar 

  14. Efron B, Tibshirani R (1993) An Introduction to the Bootstrap. Chapman and Hall, New York

  15. Friede H, Enemark H (2001) Long-term evidence for favorable midfacial growth after delayed hard palate repair in UCLP patients. Cleft Palate Craniofac J 38:323–329

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  16. Gosain AK (2010) Discussion: two-stage palate repair with delayed hard palate closure is related to favorable maxillary growth in unilateral cleft lip and palate. Plast Reconstr Surg 125:1511–1513

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  17. Grabowski R, Kopp H, Stahl F, Gundlach KHK (2006) Presurgical orthopedic treatment of newborns with clefts—functional treatment with long-term effects. J Craniomaxillofac Surg 34:34–44

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  18. Hammer O, Harper D, Ryan P (2001) PAST: paleontological statistics package for education and data analysis. Paleontologica Electronica. http://paleo-electronica.org/2001/past/issue1_01.htm 4(1)

  19. Hemprich A, Frerich B, Hierl T, Dannhauer KH (2006) The functionally based Leipzig concept for treatment of patients with cleft lip, alveolus and palate. J Craniomaxillofac Surg 34:22–26

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  20. Hotz MM, Gnoinski WM (1979) Effects of early maxillary orthopedics in coordination with delayed surgery for cleft lip and palate. J Maxillofac Surg 7:201–210

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  21. Kendall D (1989) A survey of the statistical theory of shape. Stat Sci 4:87–99

    Article  Google Scholar 

  22. Kratzsch H, Opitz C (2000) Investigations on the palatal rugae pattern in cleft patients. Part I: a morphological analysis. J Orofac Orthop 61:305–317

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  23. Kratzsch H, Opitz C (2000) Investigations on the palatal rugae pattern in cleft patients. Part II: changes in the distance from the palatal rugae to maxillary points. J Orofac Orthop 61:421–431

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  24. Lohmander A, Friede H, Lilja J (2012) Long-term, longitudinal follow-up of individuals with unilateral cleft lip and palate after Gothenburg primary early veloplasty and delayed hard palate closure protocol: speech outcome. Cleft Palate Craniofac J 49:657–671

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  25. Love R, Walters M, Southall P et al (2012) Dental arch relationship outcomes in children with complete unilateral cleft lip and palate treated at Princess Margaret Hospital for Children, Perth, Western Australia. Cleft Palate Craniofac J 49:456–462

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  26. Mars M, Houston WJB (1990) A preliminary study of facial growth and morphology in unoperated male unilateral cleft lip and palate subjects over 13 years of age. Cleft Palate J 27:7–10

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  27. Meazzini MC, Tortora C, Morabito A et al (2011) Factors that affect variability in impairment of maxillary growth in patients with cleft lip and palate treated using the same surgical protocol. J Plast Surg Hand Surg 45:188–193

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  28. Mishima K, Sugahara T, Mori Y, Sakuda M (1996) Three-dimensional comparison between the palatal forms in infants with complete unilateral left lip, alveolus, and palate (UCLP) with and without Hotz’s plate. Cleft Palate Craniofac J 33:245–251

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  29. Mitteroecker P, Gunz P (2009) Advances in geometric morphometrics. Evol Biol Rev Camb Philos Soc 36:235–247

    Google Scholar 

  30. Mølsted K (1999) Treatment outcome in cleft lip and palate: issues and perspectives. Crit Rev Oral Biol Med 10:225–239

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  31. Mulyadi M, Kreshanti P, Handayani S, Bangun K (2012) Maxillary growth and speech outcome in patient with cleft lip and palate after two-stage palate repair: a systematic review. Ind J Plast Reconstr Aesthet Surg 4:402–408

    Google Scholar 

  32. Mylin WK, Hagerty RF (1983) Midfacial skeletal profile in early and late closure of the hard palate. South Med J 76:610–612

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  33. Neuschulz J, Schaefer I, Scheer M et al (2013) Maxillary reaction patterns identified by three-dimensional analysis of casts from infants with unilateral cleft lip and palate. J Orofac Orthop 74:275–286

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  34. Nollet PJPM, Katsaros C, Hof MA van’t et al (2005) Treatment outcome after two-stage palatal closure in unilateral cleft lip and palate: a comparison with Eurocleft. Cleft Palate Craniofac J 42:512–516

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  35. Noverraz AE, Kuijpers-Jagtman AM, Mars M, Hof MA van’t (1993) Timing of hard palate closure and dental arch relationships in unilateral cleft lip and palate patients: a mixed-longitudinal study. Cleft Palate Craniofac J 30:391–396

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  36. Opitz C, Kratzsch H (1997) Oberkieferdimension bei Patienten mit ein- und doppelseitiger Lippen-Kiefer-Gaumen-Spalte. J Orofac Orthop 58:110–123

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  37. Rohrich RJ, Rowsell AR, Johns DF et al (1996) Timing of hard palatal closure: a critical long-term analysis. Plast Reconstr Surg 98:236–246

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  38. Rohrich RJ, Rowsell AR, Johns DF et al (1998) Timing of hard palatal closure: a critical long-term analysis. Plast Reconstr Surg 98:236–246

    Article  Google Scholar 

  39. Ross RB (1987) Treatment variables affecting facial growth in complete unilateral cleft lip and palate. Part 3: alveolus repair and bone grafting. Cleft Palate J 24:33–44

    Google Scholar 

  40. Semb G (1991) A study of facial growth in patients with unilateral cleft lip and palate treated by the Oslo CLP Team. Cleft Palate Craniofac J 28:1–21

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  41. Shaw WC, Dahl E, Asher-McDade C, Brattström V et al (1992) A six-center international study of treatment outcome in patients with clefts of lip and palate: part 5. General discussion and conclusions. Cleft Palate Craniofac J 29:413–418

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  42. Sillman JH (1951) Serial study of good occlusion from birth to 12 years of age. Am J Orthod 37:481–507

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  43. Speculand B, Butcher GW, Stephens CD (1988) Three-dimensional measurement: the accuracy and precision of the reflex microscope. Br J Oral Maxillofac Surg 26:276–283

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  44. Xu X, Zheng Q, Lu D et al (2012) Timing of palate repair affecting growth in complete unilateral cleft lip and palate. J Craniomaxillofac Surg 40:e358–e362

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  45. Yang IY, Liao YF (2010) The effect of 1-stage versus 2-stage palate repair on facial growth in patients with cleft lip and palate: a review. Int J Oral Maxillofac Surg 39:945–950

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

Download references

Compliance with ethical guidelines

Conflict of interest. Nadezhda Stancheva, Karl-Heinz Dannhauer, Alexander Hemprich, and Karl-Friedrich Krey state there are no conflicts of interest.

Einhaltung ethischer Richtlinien

Interessenkonflikt. Nadezhda Stancheva, Karl-Heinz Dannhauer, Alexander Hemprich und Karl-Friedrich Krey geben an, dass kein Interessenkonflikt besteht.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Corresponding author

Correspondence to K.-F. Krey.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Stancheva, N., Dannhauer, KH., Hemprich, A. et al. Three-dimensional analysis of maxillary development in patients with unilateral cleft lip and palate during the first six years of life. J Orofac Orthop 76, 391–404 (2015). https://doi.org/10.1007/s00056-015-0299-z

Download citation

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00056-015-0299-z

Keywords

Schlüsselwörter

Navigation