Abstract
The current study was conducted to assess the extent of maxillary arch collapse on the cleft vis-a-vis non-cleft sides in the same individual presenting withunilateral cleft lip and palate (UCLP), using cone-beam computed tomography (CBCT). Thirty-one children (eighteen boys andthirteen girls) with surgically repaired UCLP, who met the inclusion criteria, were selected. Following the acquisition of CBCT scans, fourteen bilateral landmarks were selected. The distance of the bilateral landmark was calculated from the midsagittal plane on the cleft and non-cleft sides for both frontal and axial views. Tracings were done;the data obtained was subjected to statistical analysis;and intra-observer variability was checked with intraclass correlation coefficient (ICC) and two-way ANOVA. Subsequently, the measurements were subjected to paired t-tests at the 95% level of significance with Bonferroni correction. A significant reduction of pyriforme and an alveolar crest above the maxillary 1st molar were discerned in frontal analysis on the cleft side. In the axial view, the zygomatic arch, malar, porion and alveolar crest at the molar region were non-significant, but the alveolar crest at the premolar region (p < 0.004)) was significantly decreased. In the frontal analysis, pyriforme and the alveolar crest above the maxillary 1st molar, and, in the axial view, premolar widths, showed significant reduction when comparing the cleft vis-a-vis non-cleft sides.
Highlights
A vital determinant while assessing cleft lip and/or palate (CL ± p) treatment qualitatively and quantitatively is midfacial growth, which plays a pivotal role in prognosis
Though there was a difference between the cleft and non-cleft sides for the zygomaticofrontal suture, infraorbital margin, malare, lower 1st molar, mental foramen, antegonial notch, and gonion, when measured with respect to the midsagittal plane, the values were not statistically significant
Significant reduction in the transverse position of pyriforme was noted on the cleft side (cleft side, 7.77 ± 2.261 mm; non-cleft side, 5.3 ± 1.504 mm; (p < 0.004)
Summary
A vital determinant while assessing cleft lip and/or palate (CL ± p) treatment qualitatively and quantitatively is midfacial growth, which plays a pivotal role in prognosis. The greatest cause for hypoplastic maxilla in these patients is probably iatrogenic ramifications induced by unsatisfactory surgical outcomes, as untreated cleft patients often show usual growth potential [1]. Cognizance of the pre-operative anatomy of the cleft and neighboring regions is imperative for quintessential treatment planning [2]. For proper therapeutic decision-making, it is exigent to have. Res. Public Health 2020, 17, 7786; doi:10.3390/ijerph17217786 www.mdpi.com/journal/ijerph
Sign-in/Register to view highlights & summary Sign-in/Register to access full text options 
Talk to us
Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have
Schedule a callMore From: International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health
Disclaimer: All third-party content on this website/platform is and will remain the property of their respective owners and is provided on "as is" basis without any warranties, express or implied. Use of third-party content does not indicate any affiliation, sponsorship with or endorsement by them. Any references to third-party content is to identify the corresponding services and shall be considered fair use under The CopyrightLaw.
