Liao Yu-Fang, Lee Ying-Hsin, Wang Ruby, Huang Chiung-Shing, Chen Philip Kuo-Ting, Lo Lun-Jou, Chen Yu-Ray
Craniofacial Center, Chang Gung Memorial Hospital, Taoyuan, Taiwan.
Craniofacial Research Center, Chang Gung Memorial Hospital, Linkou, Taiwan.
Clin Oral Investig. 2014 May;18(4):1269-1276. doi: 10.1007/s00784-013-1084-2. Epub 2013 Aug 13.
Vomer flap repair is assumed to improve maxillary growth because of reduced scarring in growth-sensitive areas of the palate. Our aim was to evaluate whether facial growth in patients with unilateral cleft lip and palate was significantly affected by the technique of hard palate repair (vomer flap versus two-flap).
For this retrospective longitudinal study, we analyzed 334 cephalometric radiographs from 95 patients with nonsyndromic complete unilateral cleft lip and palate who underwent hard palate repair by two different techniques (vomer flap versus two-flap). Clinical notes were reviewed to record treatment histories. Cephalometry was used to determine facial morphology and growth rate. The associations among facial morphology at age 20, facial growth rate, and technique of hard palate repair were assessed using generalized estimating equation analysis.
The hard palate repair technique significantly influenced protrusion of the maxilla (SNA: β = -3.5°, 95 % CI = -5.2-1.7; p = 0.001) and the anteroposterior jaw relation (ANB: β = -4.2°, 95 % CI = -6.4-1.9; p = 0.001; Wits: β = -5.7 mm, 95 % CI = -9.6-1.2; p = 0.01) at age 20, and their growth rates (SNA p = 0.001, ANB p < 0.01, and Wits p = 0.02).
The results suggest that in patients with unilateral cleft lip and palate, vomer flap repair has a smaller adverse effect than two-flap on growth of the maxilla. This effect on maxillary growth is on the anteroposterior development of the alveolar maxilla and is progressive with age. We now perform hard palate closure with vomer flap followed by soft palate closure using Furlow palatoplasty.
These findings may improve treatment outcome by modifying the treatment protocol for patients with unilateral cleft lip and palate.
由于腭裂生长敏感区域瘢痕形成减少,犁骨瓣修复术被认为可改善上颌骨生长。我们的目的是评估单侧唇腭裂患者的面部生长是否受到硬腭修复技术(犁骨瓣修复术与双瓣修复术)的显著影响。
在这项回顾性纵向研究中,我们分析了95例非综合征性完全性单侧唇腭裂患者的334张头颅侧位X线片,这些患者接受了两种不同技术的硬腭修复术(犁骨瓣修复术与双瓣修复术)。查阅临床记录以记录治疗史。采用头影测量法确定面部形态和生长速率。使用广义估计方程分析评估20岁时的面部形态、面部生长速率与硬腭修复技术之间的关联。
硬腭修复技术显著影响20岁时上颌骨的前突度(SNA:β = -3.5°,95%可信区间 = -5.2 - 1.7;p = 0.001)和上下颌前后关系(ANB:β = -4.2°,95%可信区间 = -6.4 - 1.9;p = 0.001;Wits:β = -5.7 mm,95%可信区间 = -9.6 - 1.2;p = 0.01)及其生长速率(SNA p = 0.001,ANB p < 0.01,Wits p = 0.02)。
结果表明,在单侧唇腭裂患者中,犁骨瓣修复术对上颌骨生长的不良影响小于双瓣修复术。这种对上颌骨生长的影响在于牙槽突上颌骨的前后发育,且随年龄增长而逐渐加重。我们现在采用犁骨瓣进行硬腭关闭,随后使用弗洛腭成形术进行软腭关闭。
这些发现可能通过修改单侧唇腭裂患者的治疗方案来改善治疗效果。