Display options
Share it on

PeerJ. 2021 Dec 16;9:e12643. doi: 10.7717/peerj.12643. eCollection 2021.

Long-term follow-up of mandibular dental arch changes in patients with complete non-syndromic unilateral cleft lip, alveolus, and palate.

PeerJ

Sariesendy Sumardi, Benny S Latief, Anne Marie Kuijpers-Jagtman, Edwin M Ongkosuwito, Ewald M Bronkhorst, Mette A R Kuijpers

Affiliations

  1. Faculty of Dentistry, Department of Orthodontics, Universitas Indonesia, Jakarta, Indonesia.
  2. Faculty of Dentistry, Department of Oral-Maxillofacial Surgery, Universitas Indonesia, Jakarta, Indonesia.
  3. Faculty of Dentistry, Universitas Indonesia, Jakarta, Indonesia.
  4. Department of Orthodontics and Dentofacial Orthopedics, School of Dental Medicine, Medical Faculty, University of Bern, Bern, Switzerland.
  5. Department of Orthodontics, University of Groningen, University Medical Center Groningen, Groningen, Netherlands.
  6. Department of Dentistry - Orthodontics and Craniofacial Biology, Radboud University Medical Center, Nijmegen, The Netherlands.
  7. Radboud Institute for Health Sciences, Department of Dentistry, Radboud University Medical Center, Nijmegen, The Netherlands.

PMID: 35003933 PMCID: PMC8684719 DOI: 10.7717/peerj.12643

Abstract

BACKGROUND: Treatment of cleft lip and palate (CLP) requires a comprehensive interdisciplinary approach and long-term follow-up. Only a few studies are available that reported on changes after treatment, which showed that in particular the transverse dimension, in patients with CLP is prone to changes after treatment. However, those studies did not pay attention to concomitant changes in the mandibular arch that occur after treatment.

OBJECTIVES: To evaluate mandibular transverse dental arch dimensions and interarch transverse changes in patients with complete non-syndromic unilateral cleft lip, alveolus, and palate (CUCLAP) up to five years after treatment.

MATERIAL AND METHODS: Retrospective longitudinal study in 75 consecutive patients with CUCLAP directly after comprehensive treatment (T0), two (T2), and 5 years after treatment (T5). Great Ormond Street, London and Oslo (GOSLON) scores were available for all patients. Three-dimensional scans of all dental casts were made. Inter premolar and intermolar distances between the mandibular contralateral teeth were measured. The modified Huddart Bodenham (MHB index) was applied to assess the transverse interarch relationship. Paired t-tests and ANOVA were used to analyze transverse and interarch transverse changes. Linear regression analysis was done to define contributing factors.

RESULTS: Paired t-tests showed a significant decrease of the mandibular inter first and second premolar distances (

CONCLUSIONS: Changes occurred in the mandibular arch expressed as changes in the transverse dimensions and interarch relationship measured by the MHB Index. A younger age at the end of treatment, space closure for a missing maxillary lateral incisor and a higher GOSLON score at the end of treatment negatively influence the interarch transverse deterioration especially in the first two years after treatment. For the transverse dimensional changes in the mandibular arch such influencing factors could not be determined.

©2021 Sumardi et al.

Keywords: Complete unilateral cleft lip and palate; Dental casts; Long-term outcome; Mandibular dental arch; Modified Huddart-Bodenham Index; Unilateral cleft lip, alveolus, and palate

Conflict of interest statement

Anne Marie Kuijpers-Jagtman is an academic editor for PeerJ. All other authors declare that they have no competing interests.

References

  1. Ned Tijdschr Tandheelkd. 2015 Nov;122(11):575-81 - PubMed
  2. Eur J Orthod. 2012 Aug;34(4):418-26 - PubMed
  3. BMC Oral Health. 2020 May 27;20(1):154 - PubMed
  4. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop. 2003 Dec;124(6):615-24 - PubMed
  5. Clin Oral Investig. 2015 Dec;19(9):2255-65 - PubMed
  6. Adv Wound Care (New Rochelle). 2013 May;2(4):122-141 - PubMed
  7. Eur J Orthod. 2004 Aug;26(4):385-90 - PubMed
  8. J Craniomaxillofac Surg. 2019 Apr;47(4):578-585 - PubMed
  9. J Craniomaxillofac Surg. 2015 Dec;43(10):2106-11 - PubMed
  10. Eur J Orthod. 2009 Apr;31(2):109-20 - PubMed
  11. Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants. 2014 Mar-Apr;29(2):384-90 - PubMed
  12. Cleft Palate Craniofac J. 2022 Jan;59(1):86-97 - PubMed
  13. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop. 2021 Feb;159(2):184-192 - PubMed
  14. Cleft Palate Craniofac J. 2017 Sep;54(5):571-581 - PubMed
  15. Arch Oral Biol. 1991;36(11):837-43 - PubMed
  16. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop. 2018 Aug;154(2):188-200 - PubMed
  17. Front Oral Biol. 2012;16:1-18 - PubMed
  18. Cleft Palate J. 1972 Jul;9:194-209 - PubMed
  19. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2018 Aug 10;8:CD010403 - PubMed
  20. Turk J Orthod. 2019 Sep;32(3):139-144 - PubMed
  21. Cleft Palate Craniofac J. 2010 Nov;47(6):591-6 - PubMed
  22. J Clin Periodontol. 2004 Nov;31(11):1024-8 - PubMed
  23. Braz J Otorhinolaryngol. 2012 Oct;78(5):116-20 - PubMed
  24. Ann Maxillofac Surg. 2015 Jan-Jun;5(1):32-6 - PubMed
  25. Angle Orthod. 2019 Jan;89(1):87-92 - PubMed
  26. J Plast Reconstr Aesthet Surg. 2018 Apr;71(4):504-517 - PubMed
  27. Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants. 2014 Sep-Oct;29(5):1098-105 - PubMed
  28. Cleft Palate Craniofac J. 1997 Jan;34(1):21-6 - PubMed
  29. J Plast Surg Hand Surg. 2017 Feb;51(1):88-93 - PubMed
  30. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop. 2006 Dec;130(6):721-31 - PubMed
  31. J Prosthet Dent. 2021 Feb 12;: - PubMed
  32. Orthod Craniofac Res. 2018 May;21(2):78-83 - PubMed
  33. Int J Oral Maxillofac Surg. 2020 Jul;49(7):952-959 - PubMed
  34. J Appl Oral Sci. 2019 Jun 13;27:e20180434 - PubMed
  35. Cleft Palate Craniofac J. 2002 Jul;39(4):425-31 - PubMed
  36. Cleft Palate Craniofac J. 2008 May;45(3):278-83 - PubMed
  37. J Craniofac Surg. 2021 Jul-Aug 01;32(5):e501-e504 - PubMed
  38. Nat Rev Genet. 2011 Mar;12(3):167-78 - PubMed
  39. Cleft Palate Craniofac J. 2018 Jan;55(1):137-156 - PubMed

Publication Types