The Facial Growth Pattern and the Amount of Palatal Bone Deficiency Relative to Cleft Size Should Be Considered in Treatment Planning.

BACKGROUND: The aim of this study is to determine the best surgical/orthodontic treatment plan for the complete bilateral and unilateral cleft lip and palate patient to achieve all treatment goals of facial aesthetics, speech, dental function, and psychosocial development. METHODS: Review of 40 years of serial complete bilateral cleft lip and palate and complete unilateral cleft lip and palate dental casts and photographs from birth to adolescence, with serial cephs starting at 4 years. This was part of a multicenter international 3-dimensional palatal growth study of serial dental casts of patients who developed good speech, occlusion, and facial growth. RESULTS: Nasoalveolar molding and gingivoperiosteoplasty were introduced without proven longitudinal benefits. The procedure bodily retruded the premaxilla, which "telescoped" backward causing synostosis at the premaxillary vomerine suture. The resulting midfacial recessiveness with an anterior dental crossbite can only be corrected by midfacial protraction or a Le Fort I surgery. CONCLUSIONS: Staged orthodontic/surgical treatment limiting premaxillary retraction forces to lip adhesion or forces that cause only premaxillary ventroflexion produce the best results. The palatal cleft should be closed between 18 and 24 months when the ratio of the cleft to the palatal size medial to the alveolar ridge is at least 10%. The protruding premaxilla should only be ventroflexed but never bodily retruded. The facial growth pattern and degree of palatal bone deficiency are the main items to be considered in treatment planning.

A Review of the Cleft Lip/Palate Literature Reveals That Differential Diagnosis of the Facial Skeleton and Musculature is Essential to Achieve All Treatment Goals.

BACKGROUND: After 40 years of monitoring cleft palate treatment results with extensive objective records of cephaloradiographs, dental casts, and photographs, it became apparent that patients with the same cleft type who received the same treatment at approximately the same age were obtaining different results. METHOD: An extensive review of cleft palate surgical, orthodontic, facial, and palatal longitudinal growth studies was undertaken to determine the critical physical difference between these patients that determined why some treatments succeeded while others failed. RESULTS: Treatment should be based on performing staged palatal surgery between 18 and 24 months when the palatal surface area to cleft space size is approximately 15% to 20%. Presurgical orthopedics with a gingivoperiosteoplasty causes midfacial deformities. CONCLUSION: Even though patients have the same cleft type and have received the same surgical treatment, usually between 18 and 24 months, the ratio of cleft and palatal size of 15% to 20% is critical to obtain good palatal development.

Gingivoperiosteoplasty as well as early palatal cleft closure is unproductive.

A review of the cleft palate presurgical orthopedic appliance literature reveals that the appliance's use in neonatal treatment is limited to the molding of neonatal palatal segments. When coupled with primary bone grafting and/or gingivoperiosteoplasty, the long-term effects on facial aesthetics and dental occlusion are compromised, requiring extensive surgical-orthodontic corrective treatment. To avoid the bad effects, the surgeon/orthodontist should take into consideration the extent of palatal osteogenic deficiency, the presence or absence of teeth, the nature of the pharyngeal architecture, and the facial growth pattern. Gingivoperiosteoplasty and early palate surgery should not be performed before 12 months. The best time to close the palate cleft is between 18 and 24 months in most cases when the velocity of palate growth has leveled off. Secondary alveolar bone grafting of the alveolar cleft is the most physiologically attuned procedure that can be used to replace missing alveolar bone.

Palatal surface area of maxillary plaster casts--a comparison between two-dimensional and three-dimensional measurements.

OBJECTIVE: To investigate the relationship between corresponding two-dimensional and three-dimensional measurements on maxillary plaster casts taken from photographs and three-dimensional surface scans, respectively. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Corresponding two-dimensional and three-dimensional measurements of selected linear distances, curve lengths, and (surface) areas were carried out on maxillary plaster casts from individuals with unilateral or bilateral cleft lip and palate. The relationship between two-dimensional and three-dimensional measurements was investigated using linear regression. RESULTS AND CONCLUSIONS: Error sources in the measurement of three-dimensional palatal segment surface area from a two-dimensional photograph were identified as photographic distortion (2.7%), interobserver error (3.3%), variability in the orientation of the plaster cast (3.2%), and natural shape variation (4.6%). The total error of determining the cleft area/palate surface area ratio was 15%. In population studies, the effect of using two-dimensional measurements is a decrease of discriminating power. In well-calibrated setups, a two-dimensional measurement of the cleft area/palate surface area ratio may be converted to a three-dimensional measurement by use of a multiplication factor of 0.75.

Timing of cleft palate closure should be based on the ratio of the area of the cleft to that of the palatal segments and not on age alone.

BACKGROUND: Retrospective and prospective serial spatiotemporal investigations were carried out primarily to determine whether the ratio of the size of the posterior cleft space relative to the palatal surface area limited laterally by the alveolar ridges can be used to select the appropriate time for surgical closure of the palatal cleft space. Two subsamples were compared to determine whether the size of the palate and velocity of palatal development in well growing cases differ from those in cases treated by vomer flap surgery. The prospective investigation asked whether presurgical orthopedics increases the rate of palatal growth and palatal size. METHODS: Using the palatal casts of 242 male and female individuals from eight institutions in the United States and Western Europe that followed a variety of treatment protocols, separate serial analyses were conducted of well growing cases with excellent aesthetics, dental occlusion, and speech and a control series of 17 cases of various clefts of the lip and alveolus and/or soft palate but no clefts in the hard palate. Twelve groupings of cases were established depending on their institutional location and type of cleft. RESULTS: Among the various institutions in the study, palatal growth rates and size were statistically similar. Growth in the various clinical series (size, mm2) was less than that of the control series. The ratio of cleft space size to palatal surface area medial to the alveolar ridges was 10 percent or less at 18 months of age in most cases. There was no statistical difference in total surface size between groups, except for one series whose total growth size was least of all. Right and left lateral palatal segments, whether large or small, grew at the same rate. The sample of bilateral cases was too small for statistical comparisons. Presurgical orthopedics did not stimulate palatal growth. The coefficient of variance was less than 10 percent in all measurements. CONCLUSIONS: Delaying all cleft closure surgery until 5 years of age and older is unnecessary to maximize palatal growth. The best time to close the palatal cleft space is when the palatal cleft size is 10 percent or less of the total palatal surface area bounded laterally by the alveolar ridges. The 10 percent ratio generally occurs between 18 and 24 months but can occur earlier or later. There is more than one good type of palatal cleft closure surgery.

A comparison of the effects of the Latham-Millard procedure with those of a conservative treatment approach for dental occlusion and facial aesthetics in unilateral and bilateral complete cleft lip and palate: part I. Dental occlusion.

The purpose of this study was to compare the effect of the Latham-Millard presurgical orthopedics, gingivoperiosteoplasty, and lip adhesion protocol with conservative treatment (nonpresurgical orthopedics without gingivoperiosteoplasty) for palatal and dental occlusion in complete bilateral and complete unilateral cleft lip and palate. All patients were from the South Florida Cleft Palate Clinic. A retrospective dental occlusal study was conducted using serial dental casts that had been taken of patients from birth to 12 years of age. All surgical procedures, except for the secondary alveolar bone grafts in the conservative, nonpresurgical orthopedics group, were performed by D. Ralph Millard, Jr. Ralph Latham supervised the presurgical orthopedics cases. Samuel Berkowitz collected and analyzed all the serial records from 1960 to 1996. Among the patients with complete unilateral cleft lip and palate, 30 patients were treated with presurgical orthopedics, gingivoperiosteoplasty, and lip adhesion (the Latham-Millard protocol) and 51 patients were treated conservatively (i.e., nonpresurgical orthopedics without gingivoperiosteoplasty). Among the patients with complete bilateral cleft lip and palate, 21 patients were treated with the Latham-Millard protocol and 49 patients were treated conservatively. Conservative treatment was performed between 1960 and 1980. In patients with bilateral cleft lip and palate, a head bonnet with an elastic strip was used to ventroflex the protruding premaxilla. In all patients (unilateral and bilateral cleft), lip adhesion was performed at 3 months followed by definitive lip surgery at 6 to 8 months and palatal cleft closure between 18 and 24 months of age, in most cases. The Latham-Millard procedure was performed from 1980 to 1996; in bilateral cleft patients, it involved the use of a fixed palatal orthopedic appliance to bodily retract the protruding premaxilla and align it within the alveolar segments soon after birth. In all patients (unilateral and bilateral cleft), palatal alignment was also followed by gingivoperiosteoplasty and lip adhesion. Definitive lip surgery was performed between 6 and 8 months of age, and palatal closure was performed between 8 and 24 months of age using the von Langenbeck procedure with a modified vomer flap. All of the study participants had cleft lips and palates of either the unilateral or bilateral type; the unilateral and bilateral groups were further subdivided based on whether they had received the Latham-Millard protocol or the conservative treatment. It was then determined how many in each of these four basic groups had either anterior or buccal crossbites at four different age levels, when they were approximately 3, 6, 9, and 12 years of age. Although several children entered the study at or just before age 6, every patient in the 9-year-old and 12-year-old sample groups had been in the 6-year-old group and all of the 12-year-olds had been included in the immediate preceding age sample. Two-by-two chi-square tests were carried out within each cleft type (unilateral or bilateral) at each of the four age levels separately, to test whether the treatment groups (protocol versus conservative) differed in the frequency of cases with a given kind of crossbite (rather than not having that kind of crossbite). At every age level, a greater percentage of patients treated with the Latham-Millard protocol developed crossbites than did those treated more conservatively. This difference existed for both the anterior and buccal crossbites and for both unilateral and bilateral clefts. Chi-square tests of the treatment differences in crossbite frequency showed that in three quarters of the Latham-Millard protocol versus conservative treatment comparisons (12 out of 16), a significantly greater frequency of crossbite cases occurred after the Latham-Millard protocol treatment as compared with after the conservative procedure. The chi-square values for the differences in outcome between the two kinds of treatment procedures were greater for the anterior crossbites than for the buccal crossbites, suggesting that the Latham-Millard protocol, relative to the conservative method, was more likely to have an adverse effect on the anterior crossbites than on the buccal crossbites. For those patients born with a bilateral cleft, the differences in crossbite frequency between the protocol and the conservative treatment were statistically significant for patients with an anterior crossbite but not for patients with a buccal crossbite. The analysis shows that in complete bilateral and unilateral cleft lip and palate, the frequency of the anterior crossbite and (except for ages 3 and 12) the buccal crossbite is significantly higher with the Latham-Millard presurgical orthopedics, gingivoperiosteoplasty, and lip adhesion protocol compared with the conservative, nonpresurgical orthopedics without gingivoperiosteoplasty treatment. The exception in the bilateral buccal case may be attributed to the small experimental sample size, which brings down the confidence level.