Cargando…

A comparison of maxillofacial growth in Chinese children with isolated cleft palate treated with two different palatoplasty techniques without relaxing incisions: a preliminary study

OBJECTIVE: To assess the maxillofacial growth of patients with isolated cleft palate following the Sommerlad-Furlow modified technique and compare it with the effect of the Sommerlad technique. STUDY DESIGN: A Retrospective Cohort Study. METHODS: A total of 90 participants, 60 patients with non-synd...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Elayah, Sadam Ahmed, Yin, Jiayi, Al-Gumaei, Waseem Saleh, Younis, Hamza, Sakran, Karim Ahmed, Tang, Ziwei, Mashrah, Mubarak Ahmed, Lubamba, Grace Paka, Wu, Min, Li, Yang, Shi, Bing
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: BioMed Central 2023
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC10668460/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/37996823
http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/s12903-023-03588-6
_version_ 1785149135640330240
author Elayah, Sadam Ahmed
Yin, Jiayi
Al-Gumaei, Waseem Saleh
Younis, Hamza
Sakran, Karim Ahmed
Tang, Ziwei
Mashrah, Mubarak Ahmed
Lubamba, Grace Paka
Wu, Min
Li, Yang
Shi, Bing
author_facet Elayah, Sadam Ahmed
Yin, Jiayi
Al-Gumaei, Waseem Saleh
Younis, Hamza
Sakran, Karim Ahmed
Tang, Ziwei
Mashrah, Mubarak Ahmed
Lubamba, Grace Paka
Wu, Min
Li, Yang
Shi, Bing
author_sort Elayah, Sadam Ahmed
collection PubMed
description OBJECTIVE: To assess the maxillofacial growth of patients with isolated cleft palate following the Sommerlad-Furlow modified technique and compare it with the effect of the Sommerlad technique. STUDY DESIGN: A Retrospective Cohort Study. METHODS: A total of 90 participants, 60 patients with non-syndromic isolated soft and hard cleft palate (ISHCP) underwent primary palatoplasty without relaxing incision (30 patients received the Sommerlad-Furlow modified (S-F) technique and 30 received Sommerlad (S) technique). While the other 30 were healthy noncleft participants with skeletal class I pattern (C group). All participants had lateral cephalometric radiographs at least 5 years old age. All the study variables were measured by using stable landmarks, including 11 linear and 9 angular variants. RESULTS: The means age at collection of cephalograms were 6.03 ± 0.80 (5–7 yrs) in the S group, 5.96 ± 0.76 (5–7 yrs) in the S-F group, and 5.91 ± 0.87 (5–7 yrs) in the C group. Regarding cranial base, the results showed that there were no statistically significant differences between the three groups in S–N and S–N-Ba. The S group had a significantly shortest S-Ba than the S-F & C groups (P = 0.01), but there was no statistically significant difference between S-F and C groups (P = 0.80). Regarding skeletal maxillary growth, the S group had significantly shorter Co-A, S- PM and significantly less SNA angle than the C group (P =  < 0.01). While there was no significant difference between S-F & C groups (P = 0.42). The S group had significantly more MP-SN inclination than the C group (P =  < 0.01). Regarding skeletal mandibular growth, there were no statistically significant differences in all linear and angular mandibular measurements between the three groups, except Co-Gn of the S group had a significantly shorter length than the C group (P = 0.05). Regarding intermaxillary relation, the S-F group had no significant differences in Co-Gn—Co-A and ANB as compared with the C group. The S group had significantly less ANB angle than S-F & C groups (P = 0.01 & P =  < 0.01). In addition, there were no significant differences in all angular occlusal measurements between the three groups. CONCLUSION: As a preliminary report, Sommerlad-Furlow modified technique showed that maxillary positioning in the face tended to be better, and the intermaxillary relationship was more satisfactory than that in Sommerlad technique when compared them in healthy noncleft participants. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1186/s12903-023-03588-6.
format Online
Article
Text
id pubmed-10668460
institution National Center for Biotechnology Information
language English
publishDate 2023
publisher BioMed Central
record_format MEDLINE/PubMed
spelling pubmed-106684602023-11-23 A comparison of maxillofacial growth in Chinese children with isolated cleft palate treated with two different palatoplasty techniques without relaxing incisions: a preliminary study Elayah, Sadam Ahmed Yin, Jiayi Al-Gumaei, Waseem Saleh Younis, Hamza Sakran, Karim Ahmed Tang, Ziwei Mashrah, Mubarak Ahmed Lubamba, Grace Paka Wu, Min Li, Yang Shi, Bing BMC Oral Health Research OBJECTIVE: To assess the maxillofacial growth of patients with isolated cleft palate following the Sommerlad-Furlow modified technique and compare it with the effect of the Sommerlad technique. STUDY DESIGN: A Retrospective Cohort Study. METHODS: A total of 90 participants, 60 patients with non-syndromic isolated soft and hard cleft palate (ISHCP) underwent primary palatoplasty without relaxing incision (30 patients received the Sommerlad-Furlow modified (S-F) technique and 30 received Sommerlad (S) technique). While the other 30 were healthy noncleft participants with skeletal class I pattern (C group). All participants had lateral cephalometric radiographs at least 5 years old age. All the study variables were measured by using stable landmarks, including 11 linear and 9 angular variants. RESULTS: The means age at collection of cephalograms were 6.03 ± 0.80 (5–7 yrs) in the S group, 5.96 ± 0.76 (5–7 yrs) in the S-F group, and 5.91 ± 0.87 (5–7 yrs) in the C group. Regarding cranial base, the results showed that there were no statistically significant differences between the three groups in S–N and S–N-Ba. The S group had a significantly shortest S-Ba than the S-F & C groups (P = 0.01), but there was no statistically significant difference between S-F and C groups (P = 0.80). Regarding skeletal maxillary growth, the S group had significantly shorter Co-A, S- PM and significantly less SNA angle than the C group (P =  < 0.01). While there was no significant difference between S-F & C groups (P = 0.42). The S group had significantly more MP-SN inclination than the C group (P =  < 0.01). Regarding skeletal mandibular growth, there were no statistically significant differences in all linear and angular mandibular measurements between the three groups, except Co-Gn of the S group had a significantly shorter length than the C group (P = 0.05). Regarding intermaxillary relation, the S-F group had no significant differences in Co-Gn—Co-A and ANB as compared with the C group. The S group had significantly less ANB angle than S-F & C groups (P = 0.01 & P =  < 0.01). In addition, there were no significant differences in all angular occlusal measurements between the three groups. CONCLUSION: As a preliminary report, Sommerlad-Furlow modified technique showed that maxillary positioning in the face tended to be better, and the intermaxillary relationship was more satisfactory than that in Sommerlad technique when compared them in healthy noncleft participants. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1186/s12903-023-03588-6. BioMed Central 2023-11-23 /pmc/articles/PMC10668460/ /pubmed/37996823 http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/s12903-023-03588-6 Text en © The Author(s) 2023 https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/Open Access This article is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License, which permits use, sharing, adaptation, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons licence, and indicate if changes were made. The images or other third party material in this article are included in the article's Creative Commons licence, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material is not included in the article's Creative Commons licence and your intended use is not permitted by statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will need to obtain permission directly from the copyright holder. To view a copy of this licence, visit http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/ (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/) . The Creative Commons Public Domain Dedication waiver (http://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/ (https://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/) ) applies to the data made available in this article, unless otherwise stated in a credit line to the data.
spellingShingle Research
Elayah, Sadam Ahmed
Yin, Jiayi
Al-Gumaei, Waseem Saleh
Younis, Hamza
Sakran, Karim Ahmed
Tang, Ziwei
Mashrah, Mubarak Ahmed
Lubamba, Grace Paka
Wu, Min
Li, Yang
Shi, Bing
A comparison of maxillofacial growth in Chinese children with isolated cleft palate treated with two different palatoplasty techniques without relaxing incisions: a preliminary study
title A comparison of maxillofacial growth in Chinese children with isolated cleft palate treated with two different palatoplasty techniques without relaxing incisions: a preliminary study
title_full A comparison of maxillofacial growth in Chinese children with isolated cleft palate treated with two different palatoplasty techniques without relaxing incisions: a preliminary study
title_fullStr A comparison of maxillofacial growth in Chinese children with isolated cleft palate treated with two different palatoplasty techniques without relaxing incisions: a preliminary study
title_full_unstemmed A comparison of maxillofacial growth in Chinese children with isolated cleft palate treated with two different palatoplasty techniques without relaxing incisions: a preliminary study
title_short A comparison of maxillofacial growth in Chinese children with isolated cleft palate treated with two different palatoplasty techniques without relaxing incisions: a preliminary study
title_sort comparison of maxillofacial growth in chinese children with isolated cleft palate treated with two different palatoplasty techniques without relaxing incisions: a preliminary study
topic Research
url https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC10668460/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/37996823
http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/s12903-023-03588-6
work_keys_str_mv AT elayahsadamahmed acomparisonofmaxillofacialgrowthinchinesechildrenwithisolatedcleftpalatetreatedwithtwodifferentpalatoplastytechniqueswithoutrelaxingincisionsapreliminarystudy
AT yinjiayi acomparisonofmaxillofacialgrowthinchinesechildrenwithisolatedcleftpalatetreatedwithtwodifferentpalatoplastytechniqueswithoutrelaxingincisionsapreliminarystudy
AT algumaeiwaseemsaleh acomparisonofmaxillofacialgrowthinchinesechildrenwithisolatedcleftpalatetreatedwithtwodifferentpalatoplastytechniqueswithoutrelaxingincisionsapreliminarystudy
AT younishamza acomparisonofmaxillofacialgrowthinchinesechildrenwithisolatedcleftpalatetreatedwithtwodifferentpalatoplastytechniqueswithoutrelaxingincisionsapreliminarystudy
AT sakrankarimahmed acomparisonofmaxillofacialgrowthinchinesechildrenwithisolatedcleftpalatetreatedwithtwodifferentpalatoplastytechniqueswithoutrelaxingincisionsapreliminarystudy
AT tangziwei acomparisonofmaxillofacialgrowthinchinesechildrenwithisolatedcleftpalatetreatedwithtwodifferentpalatoplastytechniqueswithoutrelaxingincisionsapreliminarystudy
AT mashrahmubarakahmed acomparisonofmaxillofacialgrowthinchinesechildrenwithisolatedcleftpalatetreatedwithtwodifferentpalatoplastytechniqueswithoutrelaxingincisionsapreliminarystudy
AT lubambagracepaka acomparisonofmaxillofacialgrowthinchinesechildrenwithisolatedcleftpalatetreatedwithtwodifferentpalatoplastytechniqueswithoutrelaxingincisionsapreliminarystudy
AT wumin acomparisonofmaxillofacialgrowthinchinesechildrenwithisolatedcleftpalatetreatedwithtwodifferentpalatoplastytechniqueswithoutrelaxingincisionsapreliminarystudy
AT liyang acomparisonofmaxillofacialgrowthinchinesechildrenwithisolatedcleftpalatetreatedwithtwodifferentpalatoplastytechniqueswithoutrelaxingincisionsapreliminarystudy
AT shibing acomparisonofmaxillofacialgrowthinchinesechildrenwithisolatedcleftpalatetreatedwithtwodifferentpalatoplastytechniqueswithoutrelaxingincisionsapreliminarystudy
AT elayahsadamahmed comparisonofmaxillofacialgrowthinchinesechildrenwithisolatedcleftpalatetreatedwithtwodifferentpalatoplastytechniqueswithoutrelaxingincisionsapreliminarystudy
AT yinjiayi comparisonofmaxillofacialgrowthinchinesechildrenwithisolatedcleftpalatetreatedwithtwodifferentpalatoplastytechniqueswithoutrelaxingincisionsapreliminarystudy
AT algumaeiwaseemsaleh comparisonofmaxillofacialgrowthinchinesechildrenwithisolatedcleftpalatetreatedwithtwodifferentpalatoplastytechniqueswithoutrelaxingincisionsapreliminarystudy
AT younishamza comparisonofmaxillofacialgrowthinchinesechildrenwithisolatedcleftpalatetreatedwithtwodifferentpalatoplastytechniqueswithoutrelaxingincisionsapreliminarystudy
AT sakrankarimahmed comparisonofmaxillofacialgrowthinchinesechildrenwithisolatedcleftpalatetreatedwithtwodifferentpalatoplastytechniqueswithoutrelaxingincisionsapreliminarystudy
AT tangziwei comparisonofmaxillofacialgrowthinchinesechildrenwithisolatedcleftpalatetreatedwithtwodifferentpalatoplastytechniqueswithoutrelaxingincisionsapreliminarystudy
AT mashrahmubarakahmed comparisonofmaxillofacialgrowthinchinesechildrenwithisolatedcleftpalatetreatedwithtwodifferentpalatoplastytechniqueswithoutrelaxingincisionsapreliminarystudy
AT lubambagracepaka comparisonofmaxillofacialgrowthinchinesechildrenwithisolatedcleftpalatetreatedwithtwodifferentpalatoplastytechniqueswithoutrelaxingincisionsapreliminarystudy
AT wumin comparisonofmaxillofacialgrowthinchinesechildrenwithisolatedcleftpalatetreatedwithtwodifferentpalatoplastytechniqueswithoutrelaxingincisionsapreliminarystudy
AT liyang comparisonofmaxillofacialgrowthinchinesechildrenwithisolatedcleftpalatetreatedwithtwodifferentpalatoplastytechniqueswithoutrelaxingincisionsapreliminarystudy
AT shibing comparisonofmaxillofacialgrowthinchinesechildrenwithisolatedcleftpalatetreatedwithtwodifferentpalatoplastytechniqueswithoutrelaxingincisionsapreliminarystudy